2nd Test - Australia v New Zealand Hobart Dec 9 - Dec 13 2011

[TheParraboy]

1. Victor Trumper
2. Bill Ponsford
3. Bradman (c)
4. Ponting
5. Border
6. Keith Miller
7. Gilchrist (vc)
8. Alan Davinson
9. Warne
10. Lillee
11. McGrath

12th Greg Chappell

x 2

 

[hineyrulz]

You're right, Statistics can only tell us so much, by memory Trumper only averaged in the low 30s but played on wet pitches, without protection and toothpick bats. The modern batsmen has a huge advantage with the modern bats and helmets. I remember wishing AB to retire in the 90s before his average dipped below 50 so that he could join the select group of players (10 at the time) with 6000+ runs at an average of 50+. Now there are probably 20-30 players in that group.
Back to your question, someone like Benaud would be a good judge, not just an excellent cricketer but a journalist who has probably covered more cricket than anyone. I think Richie has said that Warne was the best spinner he saw and Miller the best cricketer. Cricket writers from the 20s - 60s who understood the game and had no bias are good sources of info to judge players.

Trumper averaged 39 and Hill around mid 30's, most other batsmen of their era were in the 20's.

 

[billy2]

Hadlee and Lillee are the best bowlers I've seen.
If you could only pick one of them it would be Hadlee, because he was a genuine allrounder as well.

If NZ had Hadlee a few days ago we would have been out for 50. He could swing the ball a foot either way and still have it pitch exactly where he wanted 9 out of 10.
On a flat track he was dangerous - on that pitch he would have been unplayable.

 

[Red Bear]

You're right, Statistics can only tell us so much, by memory Trumper only averaged in the low 30s but played on wet pitches, without protection and toothpick bats. The modern batsmen has a huge advantage with the modern bats and helmets. I remember wishing AB to retire in the 90s before his average dipped below 50 so that he could join the select group of players (10 at the time) with 6000+ runs at an average of 50+. Now there are probably 20-30 players in that group.
Back to your question, someone like Benaud would be a good judge, not just an excellent cricketer but a journalist who has probably covered more cricket than anyone. I think Richie has said that Warne was the best spinner he saw and Miller the best cricketer. Cricket writers from the 20s - 60s who understood the game and had no bias are good sources of info to judge players.

In a way I think this makes McGrath's record even more impressive. In an era where bats got more powerful, boundaries were roped off and pitches got alot flatter (mostly roads), and where we have seen more batsmen than ever with averages in the fifties and high 40's, for McGrath to take 550+ wickets at 21.5 over a 13 year period and to really peak around 05 before falling away slightly says alot about just how good a bowler he was. I feel he gets underrated in the best of all time debates because he didnt have the flair of say a Dennis Lillee, but Mcgrath was succesfful against all opponents. Worst record against south africa still a very respectful 27 average, especially when you factor in one series he wasnt fit at all (97/98 at home), one was in the year after he trod on the cricket ball in England (was never quite the same bowler after that). His only slightly poor performances overseas were in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, both places where fast bowlers are hardly favoured (especially Sri Lankan pitches in the Murali era). His best record was against the best batting lineup over much of that period in the Indians (average of less than 19 against them, and 21.7 in India).

He was a great great bowler.

 

[BunniesMan]

In a way I think this makes McGrath's record even more impressive. In an era where bats got more powerful, boundaries were roped off and pitches got alot flatter (mostly roads), and where we have seen more batsmen than ever with averages in the fifties and high 40's, for McGrath to take 550+ wickets at 21.5 over a 13 year period and to really peak around 05 before falling away slightly says alot about just how good a bowler he was. I feel he gets underrated in the best of all time debates because he didnt have the flair of say a Dennis Lillee, but Mcgrath was succesfful against all opponents. Worst record against south africa still a very respectful 27 average, especially when you factor in one series he wasnt fit at all (97/98 at home), one was in the year after he trod on the cricket ball in England (was never quite the same bowler after that). His only slightly poor performances overseas were in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, both places where fast bowlers are hardly favoured (especially Sri Lankan pitches in the Murali era). His best record was against the best batting lineup over much of that period in the Indians (average of less than 19 against them, and 21.7 in India).

He was a great great bowler.

This is why Mcgrath and Warne are locks for the All time Aussie XI of anyone with a brain. To get 1200+ combined wickets at the strikerates and averages they got em in this era is phenomenal.

I think they would have handled themselves in any era, and been even more dangerous in the older days.

 

[lockyno1]

Trumper averaged 39 and Hill around mid 30's, most other batsmen of their era were in the 20's.

Similarlyon the bowling side S.F.Barnes (Eng) is incredible 174 wickets at 18 or whatever it was, when every other bowler averaged 40+. I wish I saw him bowl.

 

[JJ]

Very dodgy but here is my NZ XI

John Wright
Glenn Turner
Andrew Jones
Martin Crowe
Stephen Fleming
Nathan Astle
Daniel Vettori
Ian Smith
Richard Hadlee
Bruce Taylor
Shane Bond

1. Glenn Turner
2. John Wright
3. Martin Donnelly
4. Martin Crowe
5. Bert Suticliffe
6. John Reid (c)
7. Brendan McCullum (WK)
8. Chris Cairns
9. Sir Richard Hadlee
10. Shane Bond
11. Jack Cowie

12. Bruce Taylor,Daniel Vetorri, or preferably Clarrie Grimmett
15 Andrew Jones
16 John F Reid

What's amazing is the world-class all-rounders we've had - John Reid, B mac, Chris Cairns, Bruce Taylor, Richard Hadlee and Dan vetorri are a decent bunch...

Don't see the need for a spinner, on any deck Hadlee, Bond, Cowie, Cairns, Reid and Taylor offer more than Vetorri... unless Grimmett is elligible! Cowie was apparently world class - Bradman said as much... unfortunately we didn't get many tests back then, but his record is Bond like

 

[JJ]

Just read this thread, LMFAO @ BunniesTard, Get a clue you feral spastic. Benaud ahead of Grimmet and O'Reily??? LOL I'll take my Pops opinion over yours and he reckoned he wasn't half the bowler they were. Rated him as a captain and his batting and feilding were good but his bowling wasn't anywhere near their class.

Miller should be the 3rd player picked in an all time side behind the Don and Warnie, his stats were oustanding and even better when you consider the way he played. Healy was the best keeper i have seen but Gilly was so good he has to get the nod.

My all time Aussie team

Leaving out AB and Waugh was tough Healy also unlucky but for the balance of my side Gilly @ 6 and Miller 7 gives the team so much more options.



1. Ponsford
2 Morris (Haydens last few yrs cost him IMO.)
3. Bradman
4. Ponting
5.Chappell - He just beats my two all time favs in AB and Tugger
6. Gilly
7. Miller
8. Warne
9. Lilliee
10. O'Reily
11. McGrath

That side has it all the pace of DK and Miller, the accuracy of McGrath and the two greatest Leggies of all times. Both totally different bowlers but amazing. With Gilly in the side 5 bowlers become an option so Healy misses out. Grimmett,Lindwall,Davsion all unlucky as well.

Grimmett was a Kiwi, so we'll take him

Fair side, Miller has to bat above Gilchrist though... leaving Lindwall out is criminal though...I'd have him above O'Reilly or Warne in most conditions... and not sure I see the rationale that Warne is automatically above O'Reilly and Grimmett... apart from more tests and more wickets, the other two's records stack up very well... of course I never saw them bowl... and having seen Warne it's hard to imagine them being as good, but they might have been...

 

[hineyrulz]

Grimmett was a Kiwi, so we'll take him

Fair side, Miller has to bat above Gilchrist though... leaving Lindwall out is criminal though...I'd have him above O'Reilly or Warne in most conditions... and not sure I see the rationale that Warne is automatically above O'Reilly and Grimmett... apart from more tests and more wickets, the other two's records stack up very well... of course I never saw them bowl... and having seen Warne it's hard to imagine them being as good, but they might have been...

No you can't have Grimmett

It was hard leaving out Lindwall but him and DK were fighting out the same spot. McGrath was a lock his record was two good and him and Warne is harness was as good as it gets.

For my Pop to say Warne was as good as Grimmett and Tiger was quite a wrap, he never rated anyone who played after 1950 much :lol: tigers record was a touch better than Grimmetts and him and Warne bowling in tandem would have been amazing. Totally differrent bowlers but masters of the craft.

 

[BunniesMan]

Grimmett was a Kiwi, so we'll take him

Fair side, Miller has to bat above Gilchrist though... leaving Lindwall out is criminal though...I'd have him above O'Reilly or Warne in most conditions... and not sure I see the rationale that Warne is automatically above O'Reilly and Grimmett... apart from more tests and more wickets, the other two's records stack up very well... of course I never saw them bowl... and having seen Warne it's hard to imagine them being as good, but they might have been...

When it comes to spin, Benauds opinion is good enough for me. And he is in no doubt Warne is the very best.

Keep in mind Warne had much tamer pitches to operate on than O'Reilly and Grimmett.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Hadlee and McGrath (and other champions like Ambrose and Wasim Akram) took a lot of wickets and their averages and strike rates are brilliant. But even these raw statistics don't show how great they really were. Look at McGrath, a heavy number of his wickets were top order batsmen and his record against Lara and Tendulkar is exceptional. He also owned Mike Arherton who for a while was considered by deluded English press as a very good batsmen.

IMO we lost the ashes in 2005 not because of Freddy Flintoff or peppermints causing reverse swing or Gillespie's loss of form but because McGrath trod on the ball and did his ankle in.

An interesting side story about Bill O'Reilly who turned journo after cricket. He and Benaud were watching a legspinner bowl at the scg in the 80s and O'Reilly was getting excited over the player telling Richie he was the best leggie he had seen. The bowler in question was Abdul Qadir, who was also an inspiration for a young Warne. O'Reilly didn't live long enough to watch Warne in his pomp, who was better than Qadir.

 

[Twizzle]

apparently there is a test match on this morning

 

[Medievalknight]

apparently there is a test match on this morning

Thats what I thought this thread was originally about.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

apparently there is a test match on this morning

Bangladesh v Pakistan, yeah?

 

[African Monkey]

apparently there is a test match on this morning

lol reading this thread made me forget all about it.

I suppose it's hard to talk about the test when Australia have all but won it

 

[Hutty1986]

lol reading this thread made me forget all about it.

I suppose it's hard to talk about the test when Australia have all but won it

Still got a long way to go imo. First hour or so this morning will be crucial, Aussies will cruise home if Warner & Hughes can really get going. I was only looking at scores online yesterday, but it sounds as though they were starting to clock late yesterday before the rain. Something like 19 wickets have fallen pre-lunch in the first 3 days

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Basically Australia are chasing 139 today. The blek ceps will miss Vettori today, not so much for wickets but more for his ability to tie up an end.

 

[Twizzle]

this pitch has been hard to bat on each morning, its along way from being over imo

 

[Ozzy]

Hadlee and Lillee are the best bowlers I've seen.
If you could only pick one of them it would be Hadlee, because he was a genuine allrounder as well.

If NZ had Hadlee a few days ago we would have been out for 50. He could swing the ball a foot either way and still have it pitch exactly where he wanted 9 out of 10.
On a flat track he was dangerous - on that pitch he would have been unplayable.

What about Jeff Thompson?

 

[Dragon]

lol Hughes