Greatest Australian bowlers and batsmen of all time?

[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]

Originally Posted by howardj

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by adub

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]

Originally Posted by Burgey

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Ikki]

AWTA.

z

[NUFAN]

Agree on Grimmett being unlucky to not make it but you can kind of understand why when everyone can pick just the 5 players.

It would be great if we had our own CW version, anyone keen to organize?

[intcricket]

Steve Waugh and Shane Warne.

[8ankitj]

My take at the top 25 Aussies:

Don Bradman, Keith Miller, Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Greg Chappell,
Bill O'Reilly, Dennis Lillee, Ricky Ponting, Allan Border, Steve Waugh,
Clarrie Grimmet, Adam Gilchrist, Alan Davidson, Ray Lindwall, Charlie Turner,
Fred Spofforth, Victor Trumper, Monty Noble, Jack Gregory, Mathew Hayden,
Hugh Trumble, Stan McCabbe, Neil Harvey, Warwick Armstrong, Richie Benaud

That's a serious amount of genius coming from one country! Hope, I haven't left out anyone obvious

[adub]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Agree on Grimmett being unlucky to not make it but you can kind of understand why when everyone can pick just the 5 players.

It would be great if we had our own CW version, anyone keen to organize?

Yeah, it's the format that's done him in for sure. I don't think I could include him in my top 5, or even a best 11, but would be in a top 25 for sure. Still I would have thought at least two old timers might have named him, especially considering how many votes Tiger got.