Who is Australia's second best Test cricketer ever?

[Matt79]

I'm extremely sceptical that the likes of Bradman, Warne, Gilchrist and several others left the game any different to how it was before they arrived - players that good can't, really. No-one can remotely hope to match the deeds of a Bradman, or very possibly a Gilchrist. Muralitharan, of course, has matched the deeds of Warne but it's very possible no spinner will ever touch either again.

It's an almost universely held view that those players DID leave the game changed from what had proceeded it. With something as ultimately subjective as how we view/understand/appreciate cricket, if enough people believe something to be true, it becomes true to all intents and purposes.

Also, being an aberration is more to do with what others are capable of rather than what you yourself are. Warne and Murali's excellence at wristspin is unusual only because wristspin is incredibly difficult to bowl, not because they're better bowlers than some of the best seamers.

For me, greatness as a cricketer is purely, 100% related to your own skill and that of others is irrelevant.

See, to me, you've crystallised exactly in these comments the difference between the best and being the greatest.

Averages don't work that way, though, and you know it. No batsman can be two batsmen, because you can only bat one innings at a time. Batting and bowling, however, you do at different times of the game. So you really can be two players in one if you're an all-rounder of the highest class.

One innings in which you consistently score twice as much as any other batsman really = two innings, IMO.

[Richard]

It's an almost universely held view that those players DID leave the game changed from what had proceeded it. With something as ultimately subjective as how we view/understand/appreciate cricket, if enough people believe something to be true, it becomes true to all intents and purposes.

Never heard it about Bradman TBH. People currently say it plenty about Gilchrist and Warne, but they're very wrong IMO and I hope that'll be realised as time goes by and people see how they didn't actually change anything, they just temporarily put themselves in playing positions.

One innings in which you consistently score twice as much as any other batsman really = two innings, IMO.

You can't score if you don't have batsmen staying with you.