Who the Aussies think are the best

[Francis]

There was probably a thread for this a few months ago, but if there wasn't...

The Australian team was asked, this year, to rank the best international bowler and batter they've played against in their opinion. They were asked who they felt was the best players in their team based on their experience playing against them in domestics and in the nets. And who their best domestic player was. The results were interesting and the runners-up were given.

Best International Batsman: Brain Lara (Tendulkar was runner-up)
Best International Bowler Andrew Flintoff (Murali was runner up)
Best Australian Batsman: Ricky Ponting (Gilchrist was runner up)
Best Australian Bowler: Shane Warne (McGrath was runner up)
Best Australian Domestic Player: Andy Bichel

Lara over Tendulkar suprised me. No doubt Warne would've voted for Tendulkar. McGrath would've voted for Lara though. Looking at what Lara did in 1999 to the Aussies, I imagine they felt helpless. Flintoff is rated incredibly highly by the Aussies. Some of the stuff Justin Langer said about him would have him as the best cricketer in the world if you believe it. Then again, Langer did say once Murali was the best he faced. Looking at Flintoff and the pressure he put on the Aussies in the Ashes, it's probably not a suprise. Ponting's no big suprise. Gilchrist is highly rated though. Warne over McGrath is probably right. McGrath, being in Warne's league since 1998 and above him for periods since, really would've been a close contender I imagine. From what I've been reading over at cricinfo, Andy Bichel was having a tremendous domestic season. It begs questions of the Aussie selectors when they got rid of Bevan and Bichel after the world cup when apparently they've done great things in Australian domestic comps.

Your thoughts

[Jono]

Yeah there was a thread about this a while ago. Interesting stuff. The Freddy over Murali one surprised me, but it was immediately after the Ashes and Freddy had just demolished them so its fair enough.

[Matt79]

You wonder whether a few on the team who have... reservations regarding Murali's action didn't vote for him because of that. At the same time, the Aussies have fairly deliberately sought to hit Murali out of some of their recent ODIs, with more success than not - perhaps they are deliberately downplaying his abilities to help themselves play well against him.

I'm not sure if that last sentence makes sense, but I guess what I'm saying is that they're seeking to do the opposite of what opposition teams normally do with Murali and Warne which is hypnotise themselves and defeat themselves before battle is even joined.

I think in recent times, Lara's cost Australia more tests than Tendaulkar. I'm surprised, if this is based on performances against Australia, they didn't nominate Vaughan or Laxman - the recent series against those guys have shown they rise to their best against the Aussies.

[adharcric]

Didn't the Aussies once say that they fear Laxman more than any other Indian batsman? One would think that includes Tendulkar, but I doubt they actually rate Laxman as the best in the world.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by adharcric

Didn't the Aussies once say that they fear Laxman more than any other Indian batsman? One would think that includes Tendulkar, but I doubt they actually rate Laxman as the best in the world.

The quote was something along the lines of "Getting Tendaulkar means you've done very good. Getting Dravid out means you've done great. Getting Laxman out means you've created a miracle."

Or words to that effect.

[Francis]

Flintoff may or may not become a great. But he's on a short list of people who actually played their best against Australia. And believe me, that's a short list. Murali has a good record against Australia in Sri Lanka but away from there I can't see him troubling Australia like Flintoff did.

[adharcric]

Originally Posted by Matt79

The quote was something along the lines of "Getting Tendaulkar means you've done very good. Getting Dravid out means you've done great. Getting Laxman out means you've created a miracle."

Or words to that effect.

Hmm, so doesn't that mean they rate Laxman higher than Tendulkar and Dravid?

[silentstriker]

Francis, lets see what Flintoff does in Australia. Right now, he did well against them in England, same as Murali.

[Francis]

Agreed my Indian brother... although I don't think Murali ever played a team of quality like Australia in England. But I know where your coming from and I agree.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Francis, lets see what Flintoff does in Australia. Right now, he did well against them in England, same as Murali.

He did pretty well in the World XI matches, as much as anyone did. he was one of the world XI who could leave head held high.

[Top_Cat]

The quote was something along the lines of "Getting Tendaulkar means you've done very good. Getting Dravid out means you've done great. Getting Laxman out means you've created a miracle."

I never took it as being that they rated any of those higher than each other. I think they rated them all as equally-prized wickets and that knocking over one of the 'big three' was good, two of them was great but all three was a miracle or something along those lines. I guess they were saying how highly they rated Laxman (up there with Dravid and Tendulkar) more than anything.

[honestbharani]

I wasn't really surprised, to be honest. It was along expected lines and honestly speaking, I have to agree with those picks. The one thing about Freddie over Murali is that Murali has been very good for a number of years now, while Freddie has been this good only for 4 years or so.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Matt79

You wonder whether a few on the team who have... reservations regarding Murali's action didn't vote for him because of that. At the same time, the Aussies have fairly deliberately sought to hit Murali out of some of their recent ODIs, with more success than not - perhaps they are deliberately downplaying his abilities to help themselves play well against him.

I'm not sure if that last sentence makes sense, but I guess what I'm saying is that they're seeking to do the opposite of what opposition teams normally do with Murali and Warne which is hypnotise themselves and defeat themselves before battle is even joined.

I think in recent times, Lara's cost Australia more tests than Tendaulkar. I'm surprised, if this is based on performances against Australia, they didn't nominate Vaughan or Laxman - the recent series against those guys have shown they rise to their best against the Aussies.

I really doubt the Murali thing has anything to do with that. Simple question: Which bowler has troubled you and you would rate? After the Ashes, and how Australia have played Murali recently, it'd be hard NOT to pick Flintoff.

[Top_Cat]

From what I've been reading over at cricinfo, Andy Bichel was having a tremendous domestic season. It begs questions of the Aussie selectors when they got rid of Bevan and Bichel after the world cup when apparently they've done great things in Australian domestic comps.

Andy always slayed them at domestic level, in England and Australia. Unfortunately when he's picked, aside from the 2003 WC where he really touched world-class bowling on occasion, he always looked short of being a top-level Test bowler. He always gave the impression that he would be solid when his bowling was in shape but when he struggled for form, would be fodder.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Matt79

He did pretty well in the World XI matches, as much as anyone did. he was one of the world XI who could leave head held high.

Agreed.

In the Test Match, on a pretty benign wicket, he took something like 7 for 100.

Did this despite lacking some passion for the cause.