I think there's an argument for having Tendulkar in there instead of Vengsarkar, but otherwise yeah, that looks about right to me.
I was thinking of having Tendulkar only as a fielder (where he can't bat or bowl), but then I thought it'll still be unfair to the other teams because he will catch or run out every opposition within the first 15 overs.
Well thanks to robelinda and cricinfo the only thing you have missed is watching Bradman bat, and how good some South African players would have been but for apartheidt.
Presumably all catches on the boundary since that's the only way that "attack" would take wickets.
No, only the direct throws will be from near the boundary rope. The catches can be taken from anywhere; it depends only on how high one can jump.
Australia just produces an endless assortment of champion fast bowlers. Not sure Merv is the first cab off the rank after Lindwall, Davidson, Miller, Lillee and McGrath (who are rightly excluded as ATG contenders). Bonus points for the moustache?
Craig McDermott, Jason Gillespie should definitely come earlier than Merv
The interesting question for mine, is how the career of Mitchell Johnson should be assessed. Mr inconsistency? Wasn't it only an injury to someone that saw him selected for his break through Ashes series in 2013 at home? He has won Australia a lot of tests. His numbers are better than McDermott or Merv Hughes or Brett Lee for that matter.
I'd have them all before Merv too. My XI wasn't a specific "next-in-line" XI, it was a collection of players who had good to very good careers but who are short of all-timer status, in keeping with the spirit of LT's England XI in the first post.
That reply does not answer my question at all.
