Who is Australia's second best Test cricketer ever?

[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]

Originally Posted by morgieb

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?

Originally Posted by Richard

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

Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson

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]

Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson

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]

Originally Posted by zaremba

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]

Originally Posted by Burgey

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

I just read a few pages on the internet as you suggested. Here's an example of what I found: Better than Bradman

I'm not suggesting that Trumper was better than Bradman, btw. I doubt that anyone could possibly dispute that in terms of sheer hunger for runs and efficiency at compiling them, albeit often in luxurious batting conditions, Bradman was without rival. Since I never saw either play it's difficult to make any meaningful comparison. The view that Trumper was better was one fairly commonly expressed in the 1920s and 30s in Australia. However I accept that such views need to be taken with a pinch of salt, and rose-tinted spectacles distort the vision of most cricket followers (myself included), and Trumper's bewitching charm as a player may have clouded the judgment of many.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Richard

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

Yes, it's been debated long before your time and mine. And hopefully it will be debated long into the future. It gets much less airtime than the godawful "Warne v Murali" and, largely for that reason, it's a more interesting debate.

So many people think "so who's the 2nd best cricketer, after Bradman" - the stock answer is usually someone like Sobers - without giving much of a thought to the possibility that perhaps the title of the greatest ever should go instead to Grace, the man whose dominance over his contemporaries was (heresy! heresy!) the equal of Bradman's and whose influence was (heresy! heresy!) even greater.

[Anil]

dennis lillee, glenn mcgrath, keith miller, greg chappell in that order for me after the don...

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by 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.

Richard, there were some threads last year in which it was asked whether we actually knew what it was Barnes bowled.

At the NY test in Sydney, Benaud was on in a tea break and was talking abotu the 53(?) tour to England. Anyway, he mentioned SF bowled the first over of one of the tour matches, at whatever age he was then, and what a thrill it was for Richie to have met him, etc.

Benaud made mention that Barnes bowled medium-fast to fast-medium seamers, and described as almost a prototype Alewc Bedser. Meant to post this when I heard it but forgot. May clarify some things.

[adharcric]

Gilchrist is an all-time great but his greatness is exaggerated by how much better he was than any other wicketkeeper-batsman. McGrath > Warne as a bowler, barely by enough that the other aspects don't matter IMO. Miller's right up there as well but I'd still go with McGrath - that said, Warne and Miller are understandable as well.