The Don's all-time ashes teams

[luckyeddie]

Australia: Bill Ponsford, Arthur Morris, Don Bradman, Neil Harvey, Charlie Macartney, Keith Miller, Don Tallon, Ray Lindwall, Dennis Lillee, Bill O'Reilly, Clarrie Grimmett, Richie Benaud (12th man).

England: Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton, Denis Compton, Peter May, Wally Hammond, WG Grace, Godfrey Evans, Fred Trueman, Alec Bedser, SF Barnes, Hedley Verity, Ian Botham (12th man).

 

[Radical]

Hey wht abt Jim Laker and Harold Larwood,
and i guess allan border deserves a place in the australian side? wht do you say?

 

[luckyeddie]

I guess that the Don wasn't very impressed with English or Australian cricket over the last 40 years.

The surprising omission for me is no Shane Warne (one of Wisden's 5 'Cricketers of the Century'). Perhaps Bradman thought that leggies were a bit too easy. After all, he spent much of his time in the era of uncovered wickets and knew a thing or two about playing spin.

Regarding Laker and Larwood - Laker's omission surprises me, whereas Larwood's doesn't. This was probably Don's final gift to the world - a great wind-up and his last word on 'bodyline'.

 

[Radical]

Yeah no shane no border that surprises me
One other reason why don may not regard larwood very highly perhaps
"When Australia came to England in 1930, Larwood suffered at the hands of Bradman. In three Tests, his four wickets cost 292 runs."

 

[MrPerko]

I would give my right testicle to see these two sides play out a test. What a match it would be!!


But I agree, Lucky, where's Warnie?? And why's Botham 12th man????

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes, but in 1932/33, he took 33 wickets at 19 - a series in which Bradman was his 'bunny'. Now if you're going to pick yourself, you're hardly going to pick the guy who gets you out the most for the opposition.

 

[luckyeddie]

It would be interesting if they run both teams through a 'computer test'.

The trouble is, I doubt whether there is anyone alive who saw the Doctor play, and maybe only a few who ever saw Sydney Barnes.

 

[scorpio]

I saw this teams and the news yesterday. I know bradman is a very big name is OZ.

But how many really think his views are unbiased or even sane ?

I saw the teams..and my first thought was here is another old man who cant get out of nostalgia...the selection of Don tallon over Rodney marsh and Gilly..really doesnt make sense.

Also dropping larwood of all players makes it very clear that his judgement is clouded.

I for one really dont bother with this all time lists by old players coz most get nostalgic and insist tht the players oftheir time were grt blah blah blah..

This is not a knock on bradman...but on his team and this media lies at times abt wht his thoughts were. ( I also feel that it is a way of taking advantage of the great mans death)

 

[luckyeddie]

S true, Scorpio.

Maybe the Don's judgement was clouded because Harold clobbered him around the ears so often in 1932/33.

 

[royGilchrist]

Isnt this a bit old, I think Don came out wiht this list, or atleast a similar one, sometime earlier.

Its obvious that this is not an all-time best list but I think he has done a good job of not including recent players at all (Lillee is an exception), if he had included some, people would have made a big fuss about whom he did not choose.

Still, its difficult to come up with an argument about not choosing Mille, Lindwall, Barnes (his stats and stories are just legendary), WG, Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton, Compton, Trueman. They all stans up very well in fornt of the modern day players too. A far as Larwood is concerned, Trueman, Bedser and Barnes are obvioulsy better. Im not sure about this Verity never heard of him. Larwood was maybe not as much of a one hit wonder as say Bob Massie, but he still is best known for that one memorable series. If he included Barnes, he could have included Lohmann as well I guess, but then I think he figured people would complain that he was it was a 'prehistoric' lineup.

 

[royGilchrist]

BTW, this is also a testament to Lillee, and also the fact that Aus has produced a lot of great fast bowlers but not many truly legendary fast bowlers, in their long and storied cricket history.

 

[luckyeddie]

Headley Verity - Yorkshire.

Best one-innings first-class bowling analysis of all time (10-10).

er....that's it.

You can 'prove' what you like with statistics, of course. What about George Lohmann, as you so rightly said?

He took 111 wickets in his last 16 test matches - his overall average was 10.75, and all but 3 of his matches were against Australia.
His first-class career was astounding - 1841 wickets at 13 (at an economy rate just over 2 and a strike rate of a wicket every 38 balls). Did he get a mention? Nope.

I think that the teams are 'interesting' at best, but no more valid than your (or my) opinion.

 

[Top_Cat]

Regarding Laker and Larwood - Laker's omission surprises me, whereas Larwood's doesn't. This was probably Don's final gift to the world - a great wind-up and his last word on 'bodyline'.

Laker was a superb off-spinner but only temporarily. You'd hardly put him above Verity but he'd only be slightly below as well.

Yes, but in 1932/33, he took 33 wickets at 19 - a series in which Bradman was his 'bunny'. Now if you're going to pick yourself, you're hardly going to pick the guy who gets you out the most for the opposition.

Sure Harold got him 4 out of 8 times but he was hardly Larwood's bunny. First off, Larwood only hit Bradman once and second, Bradman still averaged 56 for the series. They are nowhere near his career stats but that's still a pretty solid contribution. The tactic would have taken a while to get used to and I would surmise that Bradman being the batsman he was, would have come out in the next Ashes series and pummelled Larwood to all parts, just to make a point. But now we'll never know.

Also dropping larwood of all players makes it very clear that his judgement is clouded.

Not really. Larwood was only dominant for one series and you'd hardly put him in above Truman (first man to 300 Test wickets), Bedser (a GREAT swing bowler) and Barnes (189 wickets in 17 Tests......not bad). I'm sure if Larwood was dominant for longer, he'd have been given a go but I'm sure Bradman just rated them higher and in my opinion, justifiably so.

As for my opinions on the team composition, Warnie missing out was interesting but it's hard to argue with O'Reilly and Grimmett. The biggest omission from the Aussie side has to be Jack Gregory. We're talking about one of the finest all-rounders the world has seen and he missed out. The only reason I could think of was that he didn't play many Tests and so couldn't be put in ahead of a proven performer like Lindy.

Also, I can't see how Charlie McCartney could be put in ahead of someone like Greg Chappell. THAT'S insane.

As for the English team, I can't really argue with any of it.

 

[Paid The Umpire]

A quick joke while I remember it.

Bradman - B
Interviewer - I
(In the 1985-95 era)

I: "So Don, how much would you think you'd get against the current English test team?"
B: "I'd be lucky to get a hundred."
I: "Why? Are they quicker bowlers? The game is played at a faster pace?"
B: "No."
I: "Then Why?"
B: "Well I am eighty."

__________________________

Thankyou, thankyou, no autographs.

 

[luckyeddie]

Says it all, really.

We can analyse these things until the cows come home, but we will never truly know.