• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

IMO, Matthew Elliott was the unluckiest of the lost generation of Australian batsmen from the 90s/00s

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Even perhaps more than Law and Lehmann I feel Matthew Elliott can claim to feel the hardest done by he didn't get to play 30+ tests.

Having to retire hurt on 78 in his second test was the first bit of bad luck. Looking quite assured against a very strong Windies bowling attack, this injury was quite the setback. The way it happened too, colliding with Junior mid pitch going for a run, was super unlucky.

He gets back into the side from a bad knee injury and averages 36 in South Africa in his next series, which included a solid 85. While he didn't set the world on fire he didn't look out of place.

Then we get to ashes 1997. A lot of players beat up England around this time, but this was a tough series for batting. England mainly used Gough, Headley, Caddick and Malcolm as their quicks and Tufnell bowled out of his skin in his one test. Other than Gus Fraser you can't really say they were too far away from their top pace attack from the era. The results showed this. Australia were bowled out for under 250 four times and under 120 twice. The two wins England got was the most they ever got in a series during the 16 year period of Australian dominance across 8 series.

And Elliott killed it. No other Australian got past 400 runs and he hit 556. It was the most runs an Australian got in England between the 1989 series and 2019. It's the 9th most runs an aussie has ever got on in a series in England, and that includes iconic series like Taylor's '89, Smith's '19 and Bradman's '30. It was more than Bradman got in 1948. His 199 came on a bowler's wicket, England posted 172 in their first innings and Australia were 4-50 before Ponting joined Elliott. To put into perspective how much this series performance flew under the radar, the man of the series award was tied between McGrath and Thorpe. Thorpe scored 103 runs less than Elliott.

We get to the aussie summer, he tons up in the second test against New Zealand. He's averaging 47 as an opener from 14 tests at this point, his only not out being the retired hurt in his second test. He's already gone past 1000 test runs. The credit he has in the bank at this point should be through the roof. He fails against South Africa and is dropped. Mark Taylor, who had averaged 23 in 17 tests from Boxing day '95 to the beginning of the '97/98 summer, is saved by an unbeaten 169 in the final test of the SA series.

Elliott gets recalled in 1999 after Taylor finally realises he's past it. He comes up against Walsh and Ambrose at their home, stumbles and is dropped mid series. Gets one more test in 04 against SL, has to bat out of position at 3 and is dropped after 1 match.

Very unlucky.
 
Last edited:

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
As you say he finally had another chance in that 2004 Test against Sri Lanka but ****ed it up royally.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think being dropped in 1998 after only one bad series was crazy. It should have been Slater and Elliott as an opening pair for the late 90s. Taylor really wasn't the same batsman after 1995
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He was a bit soft in the head, unfortunately. Steve Waugh all but confirmed this was the reason he was ultimately omitted.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Don't you think no-one should be dropped after 1 test? Especially after 5 years in the wildernes
He really ****ed it though. Made 1 run in 2 innings against a pretty average attack. He shouldn't have been a regular at that point anyway, he wasn't going to get a game ahead of a fit Langer/Hayden/Ponting.

Yes he was a bit unlucky and for any other team would have had a pretty solid career, but it's not like he never got chances.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah fair. I guess his initial dropping in 1998 is the biggest question mark. He averaged 42, 36, 55 and 46 in his first 4 series. And the 55 in the '97 ashes I feel doesn't do justice to how good a series it was. But then being dropped after one bad series, just seems super unfair. I feel Mark Taylor was basically given free pass to keep failing as a batsman as long as he kept captaining Australia to wins. It seems it didn't matter that he was wasting an opening spot after '95
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think the SA drop was harsh. He can't complain about being dropped mid-series on the WIndies tour though having scored 69 (heh) runs in 6 innings.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Would have made 381* against Zimbabwe
I often think Slater(and probably Elliott too) could have easily replicated what Langer and Hayden did in the 2000s

I know Langer had the grit and aussie pride or whatever, but both Slater and Elliott to me seemed like such better batsman, especially to the eye
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I feel Mark Taylor was basically given free pass to keep failing as a batsman as long as he kept captaining Australia to wins.
This is unquestionably true. Taylor was basically Mike Brearley for a few years there, his batting was that bad.
Very much an establishment man - Tory, Howard lover etc etc. never going to be dropped.
 

cnerd123

likes this
way too many letters for a thread title brother, gotta look in to that tbh

@mr_mister could learn a thing or two from this thread
 

Top