WI all time XI vs Aus all time XI

[Burgey]

I think the point Sammy is trying to make (valid one) is that Players like Miller, Simpson, Bradman, Morris, and Gilchrist faced WI teams when their bowling were far from being decent. Only Chappell played for ne length against the great WI attacks and even he got owned (excluding his WSC exploits of course). Players like Lara, Richards, Headley, Greenidge, Fredricks faced bowlers like: Mcgrath, Gillespie, Warne, Grimmett, Thompson, Lillee etc and had some level of success against them.

So, if you're going to contend Bradman would not do well vs that WI attack as the game changed so much, you would then have to concede Headley would fail, given his average when playing in the same era is so much lower than Bradman's?

Also, those players faced plenty of bowlers from other countries who were exceptional and had some measure of success against them. Sammy's point that the Aussie players listed weren't "the best of their time" compared with the WI players listed, or were "unproven" is pretty fanciful. Bradman was the best of his time; Chappell's record was as good as anyone's in his (Viv included), McGrath and Warne were the best of their time, as was Gilchrist. Ponsford and Trumper had great records for their times, Simpson and Lawry too - the latter were exceptional players of fast bowling. They didn't face the Windies at their best (ie the 80s), but they faced other teams who were very good as well.

Likewise, the Windies team of the 80s faced, for most of that decade, a completely ****e Australian team. That shouldn't and doesn't detract from their greatness though, because they beat other sides which were very good from other countries.

 

[Noble One]

I find it funny that Warne is considered the trump card given his record against a pretty mediocre West Indies side since the 90s.

Fair point. But it must be pointed out that Warne's record against the West Indies is largely tarnished by his three matches against them in 1999. Warne was so far removed from the bowler he once was, or would end up as. Largely unfit, emotionally unstable and bowling with zero confidence.

Can you imagine the hypothetical contest between Warne at his peak versus such attacking players as Sobers and Richards? Would be brilliant watching.

 

[aussie]

Is Dujon a walk-up start for the Windies keeping role? I'd have though Walcott would run him very close, if not better him.

All the time. Walcott's never kept wicket to any real pace in the 50s. He was basically stop-gap.

Dujon main challenger would be Gerry Alexander.

 

[aussie]

I find it funny that Warne is considered the trump card given his record against a pretty mediocre West Indies side since the 90s.

This is such a overplayed & inaccurate argument, its so boring now. I suggest sir you check back Warne's record vs WI in 90 CLOSELY, paying key evidence to debut, form & injury woes...

 

[steve132]

Mainly due to batting position, something I tend to lay some store by. I think Ponting the third best batsmen produced by Australia (after Bradman and G Chappell) but I do see him as a no. 3. That spot is taken by Bradman. Border and Waugh spent most of their careers (and seemed to have achieved most success) batting lower down the order, so I place them in the positions where they have done the most batting (despite Ponting being the better bat - albeit not by much). Border and Waugh also contribute to the team in terms of their bowling, which again leads to my leaving Ponting out of the side.

As to Miller, I dont think he was as good a batsman as his figures suggest. Neither do I think he really performed against the best of his time, and neither do I think he was all that good under pressure (except for that hundred at Lords iirc) although I must admit these things are difficult to guage from poring over old score sheets. I think his bowling was certainly very good, but the fact that he was selected as a batsman (at 5) and seems to have done comparatively little bowling (in terms of volume) due to his back issues, means that I cant select him as part of a 4 man bowling attack because I dont know if he would be upto the workload. The only way I can see him in my Australian side is if Gilly batted at 6, and I played 5 bowlers with Miller slotting in at number 7. But I would rather have the extra batter, 3 really good quicks, and arguably the best spinner of all time, with Waugh (and to a lesser extent Border) as back up bowlers.

Thanks.

Miller was certainly a great fast bowler, although at times his back injury limited him - and he did not seem to enjoy bowling anyway. He never carried Australia's bowling attack in the way that Imran (the most similar recent player) did for Pakistan for many years.

I've heard conflicting reports on his batting. On his day he could be as brilliant as any of the bowling all rounders - possibly only Botham could match him. On the other hand, some players from the era felt that he benefited greatly from the fact that for most of the first decade after the war Australia did not face many strong bowling attacks. Certainly he was not especially successful against either the pace of Frank Tyson in 1954-55 or Laker's spin in 1956.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Interesting. The thing that surprises me is that Warne wasn't included.

Also, lol @ Miller who played them as undisputed minnows.

Yeah, I'd have Warne in there in a heartbeat.

Given the Windies efforts against spin on turning wickets, why wouldn't have someone in there who could turn it on any wicket. Would be great in combination with McGrath, who owned Lara on a number of occasions. I don't see the point in facing the Windies with 4 fast bowlers and a back-up. Although Lillee and Thompson did tear through them in the 70's...

 

[aussie]

I don't think there is a batting line up capable of surviving against 3 bowlers who avg 20 and a fastman who can swing the ball and master any pitch and take wickets.

Its all hypotetical, but for the fun of it, this notion is highly debatable. Since a proposed hypotetical Australian All-time XI with Bradman averaging 99 & the likes of Chappell, Ponting, Waugh, Border 50 + average batsman, i think i such a scenario they could survive.

How often though is the issue...

Bradman has zero experience against world class bowlers like marshall and ambrose.

Thats correct, but thats a flawed reasoning when judging & picking All-time XI's.

Firstly we are picking players across era's to play in a hypotetical match up. So obviously you will have cases especially with pre war players that the standard & style of play where clearly different.

But fact remains the likes of Trumper, Bradman, Headley,Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Ponsford, Dempster, Donnelly where clearly the best batsmen of this period. Even though the standard of bowling they faced (especially the pacemen). Where not off the same quality to what post war batsmen faced. One cannot totally discredit them based on that reasoning, since they made big runs againts whoever they had to face.

The likes of Larwood, Richardson, McDonald, Cotter, Kotze, Farnes, Gregory, Kortright from what i've read over the years where all pretty dangerous. But due to lack of footage we will never be able to tell.

My opinion on post-war "great" batsmen especially is that they would be great in any era. They probably just would take time to adjust to them 90 mph bowlers from Lindwall to Steyn...

Bradman especially, he may not average 99 in the 70s or 90s but he would still be the best batsman in any era. That should be unanimous.

And I just don't think the aussie bowlers has a chance of dominating the WI batting line up,.

Bumbaclathh. Why not. If Qadir & Allan Border is respective turning pitches could cause them havoc (although one can counter argue that in the 74/75 & 66/67 they handled the Indian spin very well). I cant see why a Warne & O'Reilly/Benaud @ the SCG won't be a threat. Plus come on Lillee, Lindwall & Pigeon would test any batting-lineup...

there is something interesting about the aussie line up.

Most of the players played during a period way earlier or later than when WI made their mark, the greats in AUS line up are mostly unproven or they weren't the best of their time.

Defiantely check back your facts here sir...

Viv, Lara, Headley, Sobers were all the best players during their time, proved themselve against good bowling attacks. Comparing legends with good players.

Again check your facts..

There is no sure reason why any of the aussie batting line up could make a century against the WI bowling attack.

Then you criminally under-rated all the great batsmen Australia have produced then.

There is a reason why a weak WI batting line up could make 417 to beat one of the strongest and most experienced Aus bowling attack.

Haa, that was just one of the great cricketening moments in history. By no means should it be used as basis to judge anything.

Plus its sort of a poor example to your position that "Australia's All-time bowling attack cant bowl WI AT batting-lineup". Since Warne was missing & McGrath was playing injured.

 

[aussie]

Thanks.

Miller was certainly a great fast bowler, although at times his back injury limited him - and he did not seem to enjoy bowling anyway. He never carried Australia's bowling attack in the way that Imran (the most similar recent player) did for Pakistan for many years.

I've heard conflicting reports on his batting. On his day he could be as brilliant as any of the bowling all rounders - possibly only Botham could match him. On the other hand, some players from the era felt that he benefited greatly from the fact that for most of the first decade after the war Australia did not face many strong bowling attacks. Certainly he was not especially successful against either the pace of Frank Tyson in 1954-55 or Laker's spin in 1956.

On Miller, to counter the factual statistical argument that JBHOO1 made. One could say that Miller best days as an "all-rounder" where lost to the war. Especially come that great 1953 series onwards, he was 34 then already.

 

[pasag]

When was Headley ever the best in the world?

 

[sammy2]

When was Headley ever the best in the world?

The year he won wisden cricketer of the year award.

 

[Burgey]

The year he won wisden cricketer of the year award.

 

[sammy2]

Okay, he was never the best batsman in the world.

 

[stephen]

All the time. Walcott's never kept wicket to any real pace in the 50s. He was basically stop-gap.

Dujon main challenger would be Gerry Alexander.

The other thing to realise was that when Walcott kept he was only averaging around the 40 mark, which is only 10 or so runs higher than Dujon's average.

 

[Matt79]

lol at Sammy's typically measured, reasonable and even handed efforts in this thread. Candidate for the most one eyed poster on CW?

Bradman would find Marshall and Ambrose challenging - he might only average 60 against them. Give him a helmet and his supposed weakness against short fast bowling would be a bigger fallacy than it already is.

 

[Redbacks]

Bodyline Bradman (seriously i would use this tactic) and take out the rest.

if that's your big trump card he still averaged 50 whilst the rest were well below. Australia could simply return fire and restrict the WI scoring if underhand tactics are the goal. Unless you are about to present us with evidence of how others prospered against the tactic....?

 

[pasag]

IIRC Bradman was starting to master bodyline as well towards the end so an assumption could be made that it would be more or less inneffective against him if used again. Plus Lindwall, Miller and DKL could employ the same tactics against the WI.

 

[Noble One]

if that's your big trump card he still averaged 50 whilst the rest were well below. Australia could simply return fire and restrict the WI scoring if underhand tactics are the goal. Unless you are about to present us with evidence of how others prospered against the tactic....?

Would be a strange tactic to use. I'm sure we are allowing the liberty of the batsman to wear helmets in this series? I'm sure Bradman would be even more willing to take a step down leg side and hoist the bumpers through the off side.

The main reason Bradman averaged amongst the mortals was more to do with how darn well Larwood bowled. Not the continued bodyline barrage.

 

[Burgey]

Bodyline bowling is nothing without the field in place though, surely? If you're a master batsman, and the opposition bowls short to you but can only have two behind square - well, you might not enjoy it a lot, but you'll be able to survive I imagine, and score productively, even without necessarily hooking and pulling.

Interesting re the WI bowlers. It's all a matter of opinion of course, but I'd have Garner ahead of the rest, except for Marshall, but it's just my POV.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I don't think there is a batting line up capable of surviving against 3 bowlers who avg 20 and a fastman who can swing the ball and master any pitch and take wickets. Bradman has zero experience against world class bowlers like marshall and ambrose. And I just don't think the aussie bowlers has a chance of dominating the WI batting line up, there is something interesting about the aussie line up. Most of the players played during a period way earlier or later than when WI made their mark, the greats in AUS line up are mostly unproven or they weren't the best of their time. Viv, Lara, Headley, Sobers were all the best players during their time, proved themselve against good bowling attacks. Comparing legends with good players. There is no sure reason why any of the aussie batting line up could make a century against the WI bowling attack. There is a reason why a weak WI batting line up could make 417 to beat one of the strongest and most experienced Aus bowling attack.

Wow, I'm totally shocked.
I would never had expected such a post from you.

 

[The Sean]

West Indies were not minnows as theyd beaten England famously in 1950 by then but their bowling attack was no patch on those possessed by England and Australia of the time.

Agreed mate - their batting was superb and the "two little pals" formed a brilliant spin combination, but their pace attack was still largely lacking.

My point is that to call WI "undisputed minnows" during the 1950s, when they were one of international cricket's Big 3, is plainly ridiculous.