Why can't anyone decide on two openers in an all-time Australian XI?

[LongHopCassidy]

Very similar to the last thread I posted, but every single Australian XI I've seen posted has a different combo of these:

Hayden
Morris
Trumper
Lawry
Simpson
Ponsford

Rarely rated but extremely good nonetheless:

McDonald
Woodfull
Bardsley
Langer

Please arrive at a consensus within 10,000 posts. Thanks.

 

[Dan]

Archie Jackson and Simon Katich, IMO.

 

[Mike5181]

Archie Jackson and Simon Katich, IMO.

Katich as an opener was pretty awesome. Pretty sure he averaged over 50 there.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I think It's largely because Australia had so many top quality ATG openers almost every decade or so and the fact that they run very close performance wise, it's a daunting task to pick two; it comes down to one's preference really when choosing and how individual rates each era in which the openers performed.

#statingtheobvious

 

[watson]

Simpson and Lawry by a 'country mile'.

Admittedly they are not close to Hobbs and Sutcliffe in terms of partnerships formed, but an average opening stand of 60 runs every time they went out to bat beats Slater + Taylor plus Hayden + Langer by a long way - 10 runs.

I would also argue that the quality of attacks that they faced when playing against England and the West Indies means that they are greater opening batsman than what raw statistics indicate. They may be closer to Hobbs and Sutcliffe than we think. And certainly more talented than Hayden and Langer.

Also, as technicians, Simpson and Lawry had no obvious weakness. The other Australian openers did have technical failings in the following areas;

Hayden: Swing bowling. Hoggard in English conditions showed Hayden's poor ability to cope with the in-swinging ball bowled on a good length. I don't think he would last more than a session against high quality swing bowlers like SF Barnes or Fazal Mahmood during one of our ATG match-ups.

Morris: Swing bowling. Morris was frequently and consistently undone by Bedser such that his average never climbed out of the 30's during the last 5 years of his career. Incidently, contemporaries of both Bardsley and Morris indicated that Bardsley was just as skillful as Morris despite Bradman's obvious liking for Morris.

Trumper: For all his brilliance his low batting average indicates a poor temperment. He was not a successful batsman despite being a genius.

Ponsford: Fast short-pitched bowling. Compared to the likes of McCabe he was indecisive on his feet and got hit more often that he should have. In my opinion he would have more successful as a middle-order batsman when the ball was softer and his great skill against spin would have been more useful.

 

[Dan]

In all seriousness, I think Australia has traditionally produced ATG middle order batsmen to go with very, very good openers - its our weakest area IMO.

In my mind, Trumper gets the first slot. Although he was arguably better (or at least as good) in the middle order, 3-6 is pretty much locked in with obvious candidates. So, to get Trumper in, he has to open - and he was good enough there anyway.

The second slot depends on the make-up of the bowling attack. If you went with Lillee-Warne-McGrath-Davidson (or a comparable 3rd paceman), I'd take Bob Simpson to act as a second, occasional spinner. If you went with Lillee-Warne-McGrath-O'Reilly, then I'd go with Morris or Ponsford, which comes down to the day of the week on which you ask me for the selection. Today it's Ponsford.

Although doing some stats searching, Simpson averaged 55 opening. I'd probably stick with him the whole time then, TBH.

Gives this XI:

1. Victor Trumper
2. Bob Simpson
3. Sir Donald Bradman
4. Greg Chappell
5. Steve Waugh
6. Keith Miller (c)
7. Adam Gilchrist (wk)
8. Alan Davidson
9. Shane Warne
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Glenn McGrath

Add Ricky Ponting, Ray Lindwall, Bill O'Reilly, Fred Spofforth to give a 15-man squad.

Border, Grimmett, Ponsford unlucky to miss out IMO.

 

[Dan]

Simpson and Lawry by a 'country mile'.

Admittedly they are not close to Hobbs and Sutcliffe in terms of partnerships formed, but an average opening stand of 60 runs every time they went out to bat beats Slater + Taylor plus Hayden + Langer by a long way - 10 runs.

I would also argue that the quality of attacks that they faced when playing against England and the West Indies means that they are greater opening batsman than what raw statistics indicate. They may be closer to Hobbs and Sutcliffe than we think. And certainly more talented than Hayden and Langer.

Also, as technicians, Simpson and Lawry had no obvious weakness. The other Australian openers did have technical failings in the following areas;

Trumper: For all his brilliance his low batting average indicates a poor temperment. He was not a successful batsman despite being a genius.

Ponsford: Fast short-pitched bowling. Compared to the likes of McCabe he was indecisive on his feet and got hit more often that he should have. In my opinion he would have more successful as a middle-order batsman when the ball was softer and his great skill against spin would have been more useful.

Trumper: Era, era, era. Averaging 42 was pretty much superior to any of his contemporaries. Clem Hill, average 39, was the preeminent Australian middle order batsman of the day, in comparison.

Ponsford averaged 55 opening the batting, significantly higher than his career 48. He was far less successful in the middle order.

 

[Red]

I have changed my mind over the years, but have settled now on Simpson and Trumper.

The more I consider the attacks (Trueman, Statham, Tyson & Hall and Griffiths) faced by Lawry and Simpson, the more I admire them. Lawry is my third choice.

Was never a fan of Hayden, considering he struggled against great quicks early in his career, then was dropped and returned to go well against less credentialed pacemen (Srinath and Agarkar).

Always admired Langer's tenacity, but he irritated me to watch as a batsman.

Simpson brings a lot to the table. High average opening, great slipper and handy leg spinner. Trumper was undoubtedly a master craftsman and our greatest batsman pre-Bradman.

My Australian XI

B. Simpson
V. Trumper
D. Bradman
G. Chappell
K. Miller
N. Harvey
A. Gilchrist
S. Warne
D. Lillee
B. O'Reilly
G. McGrath

12th- R. Lindwall

Hate to leave out- A. Davidson

 

[watson]

Here is an interesting study on opening batsman to back up my boring mantra;

Stats from the past: The opening salvo | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Another important stat is that that the average opening stand in the Simpson-Lawry era was 38.4 runs. Their average opening stand was 60.94 thus giving a ratio of 1.59 - this is the best ratio on show by some distance.

 

[kyear2]

Trumper, with Simpson just over Morris.

V. Trumper
B. Simpson
D. Bradman
G. Chappell
A. Border
K. Miller
A. Gilchrist
S. Warne
D. Lillee
B. O'Reilly
G. Mcgrath

R. Ponting
R.Lindwall
A.Morris

Just picture a slip cordon of Simpson, Chappell and Warne for the quicks. Just amazing. Also this team againts the W.I. AT XI, Epic 5 match series.

 

[uvelocity]

lack of taylor

 

[Spikey]

Trumper: For all his brilliance his low batting average indicates a poor temperment. He was not a successful batsman despite being a genius.

fine with the rest but this is really silly

 

[watson]

Trumper: Era, era, era. Averaging 42 was pretty much superior to any of his contemporaries. Clem Hill, average 39, was the preeminent Australian middle order batsman of the day, in comparison.

Ponsford averaged 55 opening the batting, significantly higher than his career 48. He was far less successful in the middle order.

Trumper is an interesting one. Thing is I'm still cranky because of the 1903-04 series. In the fourth Test at Sydney when Australia needed a big knock from the great man, he scored 7 and 12. England won the series 3-2 !

And then at the height of his powers in 1905 when he should have been seeking revenge he scored a miserable 125 runs at 17.86 in the following Ashes series.

I could go on...........truth is, for me, Trumper is frustration personified

 

[watson]

lack of taylor

Early Taylor - yes. Just not mid-late Taylor.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I would put Trumper first in the list; reasons already said in the other thread,

The thirty year period from 1877 to 1907, batting average was 23.13 across 96 Test matches when bowling was most dominant factor. At that period, Trumper had average of 35.30 which by today's standard increases to 50.68 by conversion rate of 30% by considering batting average from 1981 to 2011. He was a master at every conditions and poor pitches.

He was great under all conditions of weather and ground. He could play quite an orthodox game when he wished to, but it was his ability to make big scores when orthodox methods were unavailing that lifted him above his fellows.

For this reason Trumper was, in proportion, more to be feared on treacherous wickets than on fast, true ones. No matter how bad the pitch might be from the combined effects of rain and sunshine, he was quite likely to get 50 runs, his skill in pulling good-length balls amounting to genius.

Secondly, I would put Morris in Australian XI. He had great composure; was elegant and equally good at playing pace and spin. Even with Bradman in the team, he was the leading run scorer in the undefeated tour of England. He had some difficulties facing Bedser in later tours but still managed to pile up 206 with Hassett's help.

 

[uvelocity]

Early Taylor - yes. Just not mid-late Taylor.

he had his ups and downs, not saying he's the best. but if someone's going to mention langer.....

 

[watson]

I would put Trumper first in the list; reasons already said in the other thread,



Secondly, I would put Morris in Australian XI. He had great composure; was elegant and equally good at playing pace and spin. Even with Bradman in the team, he was the leading run scorer in the undefeated tour of England. He had some difficulties facing Bedser in later tours but still managed to pile up 206 with Hassett's help.

If pitch conditions are a factor in assessing a batsman, then how do feel about Bardsley Andy? After all he had to cope with the likes of SF Barnes on near impossible wickets.

He was a near contemporary of Trumper with an average of about 40.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

If pitch conditions are a factor in assessing a batsman, then how do feel about Bardsley Andy? After all he had to cope with the likes of SF Barnes on near impossible wickets.

He was a near contemporary of Trumper with an average of about 40.

Bardsley came at a period when batsmen actually started to show some authority; Hobbs for example i.e. in beginning of 1910s. Before that era I feel the game was still under revolution and that's why Trumper was among the stand outs at that time in bringing a change by the way he played in addition he was a brilliant player in difficult pitches

 

[Red]

he had his ups and downs, not saying he's the best. but if someone's going to mention langer.....

Yeh, Taylor is above Langer for me.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Yeh, Taylor is above Langer for me.

Agreed; also worth noting that Taylor faced a terrifying standard of bowling for his entire career against Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock and Gough.

Brill as Haydos is, I don't think he'd manage to average 44 against them over a decade.

Alongside Anwar (who would walk into an all-time Pakistan XI), he was the best-performing opener of the 1990s.