Greatest Australian bowlers and batsmen of all time?

[centurymaker]

forgetting Keith Miller.

 

[Burgey]

forgetting Keith Miller.

He's number five.

So there'll be no Turner, McCartney or Armstrong by the looks of it. itstl

 

[centurymaker]

pretty sure it'll be something like this then-

1.Bradman
2.Warne
3.Lillee
4. Gilly

 

[Burgey]

Good to see AB getting the respect he deserves too.

 

[howardj]

Can never understand Lillee ahead of McGrath in these things

Lillee had an aura yes, but geez McGrath is one of the only cricketers with blemish-free statistics

There are no soft points in his CV - anywhere, against anyone

 

[vic_orthdox]

Suppose no Grimmett the biggest omission. Dizzy slightly harshly done by given Garth McKenzie made it in too.

Monty Noble and The Big Ship, especially if leadership is highly prized by the electorate, probably has cases too.

Voting probably rewards the guys who were the pre-eminent player of their time, with it being all former players. Garth was the leader of the attack throughout his career (IIRC), as opposed to Gillespie - so if the player has to spread their votes around, then you're not likely to vote for the second best pacer of an era (especially if you didn't play in that era).

Peter McIntyre stiff to miss out...

 

[howardj]

Bryce McGain yet to come?

 

[Spikey]

McCabe too low. Davidson and Richie should probably be the other way around for on-field performances but as we all know Richie is much more than just a legspinner

 

[adub]

The Age is runnning the 'Cricketer's top 25' at the moment (better named Bradman and the next 24).

The greatest of all time? Our cricketers decide - The Age - Melbourne

The Results so far:

The players value 'leadership', 'good bloke' etc more highly than outsiders in general.

Miller Comes in at 5:
In praise of the, ahem, all-rounder - Chapelli - The Age - Melbourne

The omission of Grimmett is pretty striking to me. I thought he must've made the top five with Bradman, Lillee, Warne and Gilchrist when I first read the article, but then realised Miller was missing. First man to 200 test wickets (and still the only one to do it in less than 40 tests), 7 ten-fers in 37 tests, averaging 6 wickets per match, inventor of the flipper, inaugural inductee in the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame. Freak I think is the word you're looking for.

I can see how it would happen with each person having to pick 5 players (I don't know if I'd have him in my top 5 either), but if he's not one of the best 25 players to play for Australia I'll give it up.

 

[howardj]

yeah, he's also a commentator who should have retired about 10 years ago

hope he's not back again this summer

sorry, but you opened the door lol

 

[Burgey]

The omission of Healy is interesting too. I know wicketkeepers are often over looked in these things, but he was a superb stumper, played over 100 tests, was a decent number seven and made keeping to Warne and MacGill look very, very easy.

A great player.

 

[Spikey]

yeah, he's also a commentator who should have retired about 10 years ago

hope he's not back again this summer

have reported this post ****

 

[adub]

The omission of Healy is interesting too. I know wicketkeepers are often over looked in these things, but he was a superb stumper, played over 100 tests, was a decent number seven and made keeping to Warne and MacGill look very, very easy.

A great player.

Agree with that, but better than Gilly and Tallon, or even Marsh? I wouldn't have been surprised to see him there, and probably would have expected to 10 years ago, but Gilly changed things. Very fine player, but not quite this company for mine.

 

[Burgey]

Agree with that, but better than Gilly and Tallon, or even Marsh? I wouldn't have been surprised to see him there, and probably would have expected to 10 years ago, but Gilly changed things. Very fine player, but not quite this company for mine.

I think Healy was both a better batsman and keeper than Marsh tbh. And a better batsman than Tallon, though by all reports Tallon was a master gloveman.

 

[howardj]

Will be gobsmacked if the great man, Warnie, is not # 2

Would have copped McGrath

Hope I don't sound too Neil Haveyish (my generation-centric) but geez these two were jets

 

[adub]

I think Healy was both a better batsman and keeper than Marsh tbh. And a better batsman than Tallon, though by all reports Tallon was a master gloveman.

I think Marsh's glovework gets a bit under-rated these days. Mainly because he didn't have to keep to Warne like Healy and Gilly did. He still had to do a bit of work up close to the likes of Mallett and Yardley and did it well. But I wouldn't die in a ditch arguing he was better than Healy, but neither do I think he was far behind if at all.

The point though in a selection of 25 two keepers (Gilly and Tallon) is about right. You can debate the identity of the 2nd one, but I think 3 would be probably over representing. Certainly not as stiffed as Grum.

 

[hang on]

what are the chances that warne would beat bradman? when i read it a couple of days ago, the article seemed to suggest that personal biases did not have to be excluded. and bradman wasn't well liked. anyway, will read it again to figure out how i have started to spout what could only be termed anathema.

Had he added a fourth - ''nightwatchmen who have made a Test 100'' - his own name could have leapt above Warne (30 out of 30), Bradman (29), Lillee (28), Trumper (27) and Gilchrist (27).

Of course, Bradman was commonplace on ballot papers, although not ubiquitous. In the Wisden poll, he was among everyone's top five of the 20th century. Among old Australian cricketers, a handful found reason not to place him among their top five. That is taking cricket's unpredictability to the extreme.

the bit above is what gave me that impression.

 

[marc71178]

Can never understand Lillee ahead of McGrath in these things

Lillee had an aura yes, but geez McGrath is one of the only cricketers with blemish-free statistics

There are no soft points in his CV - anywhere, against anyone

You yourself have touched on it. Stats are not the be all and end all of Cricket.

 

[Ikki]

Can never understand Lillee ahead of McGrath in these things

Lillee had an aura yes, but geez McGrath is one of the only cricketers with blemish-free statistics

There are no soft points in his CV - anywhere, against anyone

Except, there are - his records v NZ, SA at home.

 

[centurymaker]

who cares tbh?

no great can perform at their high level against every team everywhere (everytime)!!

They are bound to have a poor series every now and then (because they are human after all)

or it could be just down to some bad luck.