Rank the 10,000 club

[GoodAreasShane]

This got me looking at t rebel tour squads for some stupid reason. The following traitors were missing in 85-86, I've bolded those who I think would have been in or about the side back then:

Kim Hughes
Steve Rixon
Greg Shipperd
Terry Alderman
John Dyson
Peter Faulkner
Mike Haysman
Tom Hogan
Rodney Hogg
Trevor Hohns
John Maguire
Rod McCurdy
Carl Rackemann
Steve Smith (not that one)
Mick Taylor
Graham Yallop

Hughes, Alderman and Hogg would probably have been locks for the Australian side that summer. Likely McCurdy and Yallop too. Could never understand why Smith went tbh. He'd played some ODIs for Aus the previous summer or two and at least looked a decent prospect, same with McCurdy and Rackemann. Alderman was probably most badly missed on the 85 Ashes tour. Yallop was a spud but he dined out at home vs anything not too pacy (see for example his Pakistan series in 83/84).

FMD I remember watching Rackemann in a one dayer at the SCG early in his career (maybe 82-83 vs the Poms) with my grandfather and a group of mates from my junior side. Back then you could buy an outer ground ticket and sit in the concourse under the Bradman Stand. In the second session the security guards knocked off so we ranamok up in the stand including somehow getting into the area behind the press box. Looking up that rebel tour side has jogged that memory for me, and the fact I got to meet Alan McIlvray that night when he was out behind the ABC box having a fag.

Randomly stumbled across some Rod McCurdy footage on youtube the other day. Built like a brick shithouse, he could get it through for sure. Shame he went on the rebel tour, would have liked to see more at international level

 

[h_hurricane]

Still, with all this nonsense about excuses nobody has explained to me why they think Warne would have done worse than MacGill in 02/03. MacGill was an objectively worse bowler than Warne. And the gap between them was pretty huge. Bringing up how bad Warne was after his shoulder surgery to suggest he would be bad three years later after he was fully healed is absurd.

I think it's far more likely that Warne would perform at a similar level to what he did in India 2004 where he averaged 30 and took a five wicket haul.

1999-2000 season gives a clue.

In 3 tests against Pakistan, Warne took 12 wickets @ 30.83. In 3 tests against India, he took 8 wickets @ 41.87.

The 3 tests against Pakistan were played in Brisbane, Hobart and Perth which were less friendly in nature to spinners compared to Adelaide, Mebourne and Sydney where tests against India were held.

So did Warne suddenly lose his fitness against India after a decent show against Pakistan ?

 

[TheJediBrah]

This would be accepted in good faith if you did the same to stephen's dumb ****

I have, and I do regularly. If you don't notice it, I'm guessing that's your prejudice at play.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Still, with all this nonsense about excuses nobody has explained to me why they think Warne would have done worse than MacGill in 02/03. MacGill was an objectively worse bowler than Warne. And the gap between them was pretty huge. Bringing up how bad Warne was after his shoulder surgery to suggest he would be bad three years later after he was fully healed is absurd.

I think it's far more likely that Warne would perform at a similar level to what he did in India 2004 where he averaged 30 and took a five wicket haul.

I know it's not a big deal but you've said 02/03 a few times when it was 03/04 that India toured. 02/03 was the Ashes.

Also I don't agree that the gap between Warne and MacGill was that huge. Warne was definitely better, but MacGill is chronically underrated.

Neither Warne or Ponting ever faced India at their best. How convenient.

don't give a **** about Warne but in Ponting's case it's a blatant fact. Dire to try to laugh it off as if the claim is some kind of major stat manipulation

 

[Arachnodouche]

He was six years into his career by 2001 but averaged only 42 from 40 Tests so I guess his prime was some time coming compared to Lara and Tendulkar. I think he might have made runs if he got to play a full series in 04 but that's a rather qualified might, given Harbhajan was still a threat in India.

 

[vcs]

Clarke was playing as Ponting's replacement in that series, right? Given that he made two centuries, I think that exceeds Ponting's expected output, so I'd say they were better off without him.

 

[stephen]

1999-2000 season gives a clue.

In 3 tests against Pakistan, Warne took 12 wickets @ 30.83. In 3 tests against India, he took 8 wickets @ 41.87.

The 3 tests against Pakistan were played in Brisbane, Hobart and Perth which were less friendly in nature to spinners compared to Adelaide, Mebourne and Sydney where tests against India were held.

So did Warne suddenly lose his fitness against India after a decent show against Pakistan ?

Warne liked Brisbane ftr, reckoned it was his best ground.

But those numbers also give a clue - Warne had a career average of 20 against Pakistan. Those three tests he averaged 50% more than the rest of his career against them.

But ok, if I grant you that he would be as bad as he was in 99/00 then that still has him averaging 9 runs per wicket less than MacGill.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Clarke was playing as Ponting's replacement in that series, right? Given that he made two centuries, I think that exceeds Ponting's expected output, so I'd say they were better off without him.

I was just about to mention this. Definitely something to take into consideration. However IIRC it was also considered possible that Lehmann or Katich would have made way regardless. There was a lot of talk about Lehmann willingly giving his spot up for Clarke that year despite being in insanely good form, which a very young me found very strange at the time.

Warne liked Brisbane ftr, reckoned it was his best ground.

But those numbers also give a clue - Warne had a career average of 20 against Pakistan. Those three tests he averaged 50% more than the rest of his career against them.

But ok, if I grant you that he would be as bad as he was in 99/00 then that still has him averaging 9 runs per wicket less than MacGill.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. Warne wouldn't have made that much difference in 03/04. McGrath was the big loss and probably series-defining.

 

[stephen]

I know it's not a big deal but you've said 02/03 a few times when it was 03/04 that India toured. 02/03 was the Ashes.

Also I don't agree that the gap between Warne and MacGill was that huge. Warne was definitely better, but MacGill is chronically underrated.



don't give a **** about Warne but in Ponting's case it's a blatant fact. Dire to try to laugh it off as if the claim is some kind of major stat manipulation

My bad on the dates, I knew it was 2003 for some of the tests and was going from that alone.

MacGill was a lot worse than Warne. He bowled a lot of 4 balls and found it a lot more difficult to build the pressure.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Clarke was playing as Ponting's replacement in that series, right? Given that he made two centuries, I think that exceeds Ponting's expected output, so I'd say they were better off without him.

Only one century (the one on debut) I think? But it was a tremendous knock. Flat out better player in the conditions than Ponting imo.

 

[TheJediBrah]

MacGill was a lot worse than Warne. He bowled a lot of 4 balls and found it a lot more difficult to build the pressure.

True, but he still took wickets at an absurd rate. And he outbowled Warne when they played together. India were just great players of leg-spin at the time.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Looked it up, I forgot Clarke made runs at nagpur too. Him and Martyn were the keys for australia that series.

 

[vcs]

Yeah it was crazy how assured he looked on debut, facing Kumble and Harbhajan who were more or less at their peak

Just checked, he made 91 and 73 and an unbeaten 39 in the 2nd innings at Chennai (plus the 6/9). Great series, had a very good case for MoTS.

 

[TheJediBrah]

reckon Clarke would have debuted a few years earlier for most other countries. He benefited from having a well-worked out game when he got his chance.

 

[h_hurricane]

Warne liked Brisbane ftr, reckoned it was his best ground.

But those numbers also give a clue - Warne had a career average of 20 against Pakistan. Those three tests he averaged 50% more than the rest of his career against them.

But ok, if I grant you that he would be as bad as he was in 99/00 then that still has him averaging 9 runs per wicket less than MacGill.

Nah, as I said earlier 1999/00 came up against a much inferior batting line up as compared to 2003/04. Only Tendulkar of 2003 was a lesser version of Tendulkar of 1999. Others were all better versions of 1999(Ganguly,Dravid,Laxman) or massive upgrades over their replacements(Sehwag).

In 1999, Mcgrath had also reduced the instances of Tendulkar unleashing on Warne. And yet, Warne averaged 42.

 

[vcs]

True, but he still took wickets at an absurd rate. And he outbowled Warne when they played together. India were just great players of leg-spin at the time.

MacGill just wasn't close to being as good a legspinner as Warne, I don't particularly care about the statistics.

Just look at their actions, compare the accuracy, drift and the sheer amount of effort Warne put into his run-up while MacGill would trundle in with his round-armish action.

 

[TheJediBrah]

MacGill just wasn't close to being as good a legspinner as Warne, I don't particularly care about the statistics.

Just look at their actions, compare the accuracy, drift and the sheer amount of effort Warne put into his run-up while MacGill would trundle in with his round-armish action.

don't care what a bowler looks like as long as he does the job

nearly 5 wickets a match, and of his 44 Tests, Aus only lost 6 of them.

 

[stephen]

True, but he still took wickets at an absurd rate. And he outbowled Warne when they played together. India were just great players of leg-spin at the time.

Ah the good old half trackers and full tosses routine.

MacGill was a fine bowler and he was excellent in friendly conditions but wasn't as good as Warne regardless of their SCG stats might suggest.

 

[stephen]

Nah, as I said earlier 1999/00 came up against a much inferior batting line up as compared to 2003/04. Only Tendulkar of 2003 was a lesser version of Tendulkar of 1999. Others were all better versions of 1999(Ganguly,Dravid,Laxman) or massive upgrades over their replacements(Sehwag).

In 1999, Mcgrath had also reduced the instances of Tendulkar unleashing on Warne. And yet, Warne averaged 42.

And he averaged 55 vs England and 134 vs the West Indies earlier in 1999. In fact the only two series he did well in between 1998 and 2001 were on rank turners or against minnows.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

If not losing Tests you played in was the be all and end all, then Eldine Baptiste would be the greatest cricketer to have ever lived