Who is Australia's second best Test cricketer ever?

[silentstriker]

McGrath, definitely.

 

[Evermind]

Voted Gilchrist because other than Bradman, he'd be the only other guaranteed Australian pick in my all-time world XI.

Miller is good, but there've been other all-rounders better than him. Gilchrist is easily the best wicket-keeping batsman of all time. Besides, I'm biased towards post-Packer cricketers.

 

[four_or_six]

Perhaps because the success he achieved in the first half of his Test career was virtually beyond comprehension - similar to Michael Hussey of more recent times.

And obviously, in the second half of his career he was no more than an average wicketkeeper-batsman who occasionally played some of the most astonishing innings' you'll ever see.

Ironically, it was in ODIs, his weaker format, that he was probably more notably remarkable.

Yeah, that's basically it. I think the fact I didn't really follow cricket while I was at uni meant I missed his best years, and I remember the rest more.

Also just personal preference, always liked McGrath for some reason.

 

[the wrong un]

Hi all

This is my first post so be gentle with me !!

I voted for Shane Warne but seeing Millar with no vote made me wish I'd voted for him

 

[Ikki]

Hi all

This is my first post so be gentle with me !!

I voted for Shane Warne but seeing Millar with no vote made me wish I'd voted for him

Welcome to the forums. Miller has 5 votes, one less than Warney.

 

[JBH001]

No votes for Monty Noble?

 

[Richard]

Miller is good, but there've been other all-rounders better than him.

Not from Australia there haven't, and the only all-rounder better than him was a batting-all-rounder rather than a genuine, rounded all-rounder.

 

[Richard]

No votes for Monty Noble?

How many people on CW know much about cricketers from before the 1970s, never mind the 1930s? Even I don't know massive amounts about anyone before that famous Bradman's Ashes (except for the events of 1902 and 1905).

 

[popepouri]

Bradman.


I kid.

 

[Evermind]

Not from Australia there haven't, and the only all-rounder better than him was a batting-all-rounder rather than a genuine, rounded all-rounder.

I was talking about the world in general, of course. Imran > Miller.

 

[Richard]

Not really. Imran was a better bowler than Miller, though probably not by that much, and an inferior batsman. As all-round cricketers, Miller > Imran, though they are indeed streets ahead of any other genuine all-rounders the game has produced, at least since the 1930s. You can possibly make a case for the likes of Hirst and Noble from before that, but I know sufficiently little about either to attempt to.

 

[morgieb]

Warne IMO.
What happens if you think Bradman isn't Australia's best player ever? It's obvious for everyone here to think that Bradman is Australia's best player - and I think that Bradman is Australia's best player ever - someone else might not.

 

[Richard]

Then you need to read a bit. Not even a book or two - just a few pages on the internet would do fine.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What happens if you think Bradman isn't Australia's best player ever?

I think the mostly likely scenario would be lots of people queueing up to call you a pratt.

 

[zaremba]

What happens if you think Bradman isn't Australia's best player ever?

Then you need to read a bit. Not even a book or two - just a few pages on the internet would do fine.

I think the mostly likely scenario would be lots of people queueing up to call you a pratt.

Clarrie Grimmett was one who famously thought Bradman wasn't the best Australian player. To say it now is, of course, heresy.

A big part of me loves Bradman's statistical magnificence. Another little part thinks it casts a rather dull shadow across these sorts of discussions.

Grace v Bradman - now there's a contest.

 

[Burgey]

I think the mostly likely scenario would be lots of people queueing up to call you a pratt.

Interesting that three of the noms in the poll are all recent retirees. And people publicly wonder why we aint what we werem

Going Warne here, just, from Miller and Mcgrath. Principally because of longevity, all round skill, the volume of wickets and the fact that what he did so well is one of the more difficult arts in cricket.

Interesting thread though. I'd like one on England actually. They've had some cracking players going right back to the game's inception.

 

[Richard]

Clarrie Grimmett was one who famously thought Bradman wasn't the best Australian player. To say it now is, of course, heresy.

Did he? I've read stuff from O'Reilly where he mentions extensively that many (from his own club) considered Trumper his superior (while conventiently stopping short of implicitly stating that he did such a thing), but not Grimmett.

As I've said before BTW, generally the belief that Bradman was lesser than Trumper seems to be one clung to by those who had a personality clash with Bradman. Trumper was brilliant, but he was not a patch on Bradman.

A big part of me loves Bradman's statistical magnificence. Another little part thinks it casts a rather dull shadow across these sorts of discussions.

Grace v Bradman - now there's a contest.

And one of the oldest chestnuts on cricket's tree - and even CW's.

 

[Richard]

I'd like one on England actually. They've had some cracking players going right back to the game's inception.

It'd have to be third-best for England. Grace and Hobbs are the top two for pretty well anyone who knows their stuff. The third, well, it's one hell of a question. I think there's so little clear-cut-ness that it'd be almost pointless. Hammond? Sutcliffe? Hutton? It'd just have to be one of the great batsmen of the '30s and '50s - there's never been an English seam-bowler of the absolute highest rank except maybe Fred Trueman and even he has the not-that-much-outside-England question that drags down all the best English seamers. And clearly a fingerspinner, even one of the calibre of Rhodes or Verity, would not be worthy as the worth of fingerspinners has declined with the covering of wickets in a way no other type of player has come remotely close to mirroring the decline of.

 

[zaremba]

It'd have to be third-best for England. Grace and Hobbs are the top two for pretty well anyone who knows their stuff. The third, well, it's one hell of a question. I think there's so little clear-cut-ness that it'd be almost pointless. Hammond? Sutcliffe? Hutton? It'd just have to be one of the great batsmen of the '30s and '50s - there's never been an English seam-bowler of the absolute highest rank except maybe Fred Trueman and even he has the not-that-much-outside-England question that drags down all the best English seamers. And clearly a fingerspinner, even one of the calibre of Rhodes or Verity, would not be worthy as the worth of fingerspinners has declined with the covering of wickets in a way no other type of player has come remotely close to mirroring the decline of.

SF Barnes?
Of those others you've mentioned I'd go for Hammond. Always a historical favourite for me

 

[Richard]

I'd happily acknowledge Barnes as the best bowler there's ever been, myself. And certainly conceivably one of England's best three cricketers.

However, his case is undoubtedly less unequivocal than those of the great batsmen of the '30s and '50s. There are still plenty who argue that his case to be a great bowler, never mind the best there's ever been, is not concrete. The sad reality is that Barnes spent the vast majority of his career playing Minor Counties cricket. If I could change one thing about cricket history, it'd be that someone made Barnes welcome playing First-Class county cricket for 25 years. Because I've precious little doubt that if that'd been done, no-one would doubt he was the best there's ever been.