The Independent's Dream Australian XI

[bagapath]

Who needs the backfoot when you can pull off the front foot and on the walk down the pitch?

hayden will need it while facing accurate express fast bowlers like marshall, garner and holding or expert fast swing bowlers like imran, akram, trueman or hadlee, all certainties in their respective all time XIs. even among the greats of the 90s, do you think hayden would have had the guts to step out to an ambrose or donald or akram in their prime? no way! can imagine some serious nose bleeding.... we saw what happened when a rampaging pietersen tried to do it to an older, slower mcgrath... we are talking about some serious fast bowlers here. and hayden will have to change his game plan to handle them.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

hayden will need it while facing accurate express fast bowlers like marshall, garner and holding or expert fast swing bowlers like imran, akram, trueman or hadlee, all certainties in their respective all time XIs. even among the greats of the 90s, do you think hayden would have had the guts to step out to an ambrose or donald or akram in their prime? no way! can imagine some serious nose bleeding.... we saw what happened when a rampaging pietersen tried to do it to an older, slower mcgrath... we are talking about some serious fast bowlers here. and hayden will have to change his game plan to handle them.

Unless the pitch is an absolute minefield, I'd back an inform Hayden against all of them. Hayden did make runs against Donald & Wasim, aye. None of those bowlers bowl at a pace which isn't farmilar to Haydos.

 

[stephen]

I don't think Hayden was really scared of pace, after all he had Brett Lee bowling to him in the nets and in the state competition for a long period of time.

 

[bagapath]

I don't think Hayden was really scared of pace, after all he had Brett Lee bowling to him in the nets and in the state competition for a long period of time.

i dont mean that. after all, any opener will have to be good against pace to score more than 5 centuries. this guy scored 30. but in these dream teams we have to choose the best of the best to be successful in all conditions against all opponents. on that front, hayden's weak back foot play (compared to other great openers) when he encounters the greatest of express pace bowlers and great fast swing bowlers counts against him. playing lee in the nets or in FC is not enough to prove he would do well against a marshall or imran in test match situation. i understand we will always have different opinions on hayden's position in the all time ranks. i am ok with that.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

i dont mean that. after all, any opener will have to be good against pace to score more than 5 centuries. this guy scored 30. but in these dream teams we have to choose the best of the best to be successful in all conditions against all opponents. on that front, hayden's weak back foot play (compared to other great openers) when he encounters the greatest of express pace bowlers and great fast swing bowlers counts against him. playing lee in the nets or in FC is not enough to prove he would do well against a marshall or imran in test match situation. i understand we will always have different opinions on hayden's position in the all time ranks. i am ok with that.

By that logic then Mark Taylor or Justin Langer would be a better option to partner Hayden because afterall, Trumper, Ponsford and Morris never played in the subcontient against quality spin.

Hayden doesn't have weak backfoot movement, he just never uses the backfoot because he doesn't need to, as he is so big and massive at the crease.

Also, the fact that Hayden scored heavily against Warne & McGrath in domestic cricket for years on end is enough to prove that he'd be able to handle Marshall or Imran. I'd like to see how they'd react to a massive figure with a helmet on, walking down the pitch to them and hoisting them into the Grand Stand.

I wouldn't want too many olden day characters in my side either. They'll score to long or take too many balls to take a wicket. I want players that can attack and go alright when defence is required. I'd want to win matches, not draw them.

 

[The Sean]

Trumper
Hayden
Bradman (c)
Chappell G
Ponting
Miller
Gilchrist (wk)
Warne
O'Reilly
Lillee
McGrath

With the sole change of swapping DKL and Tiger in the batting order, I reckon that'd be my team as well (Lindwall potentially swapping with O'Reilly depending on pitch and circumstances). With a second XI of:

Morris
Ponsford
Harvey
Border
Waugh
Noble (c)
Davidson
Blackham
Lindwall
Grimmett
Spofforth

And, just for fun, a third XI of:

Barnes
Simpson
Macartney
McCabe
Walters
Giffen
Healy
Benaud (c)
Turner
Thomson
Johnston

All this and still no room for Lawry, Bardsley, Woodfull, Chappelli, Hill, Armstrong, M Waugh, McKenzie, McDermott, Trumble, Mailey or several magnificent 'keepers.

 

[King Pietersen]

I wouldn't want too many olden day characters in my side either. They'll score to long or take too many balls to take a wicket. I want players that can attack and go alright when defence is required. I'd want to win matches, not draw them.

You really do have a warped view of what cricket was like in the days gone by don't you. You're convinced that none of the bowlers pre 1970 bowled at 90mph, you're convinced that that uncovered pitches weren't that bad, and now you're telling us that everyone in the 'olden days' took forever to score runs or take wickets. You really do post some utter drivel.

 

[bagapath]

Hayden doesn't have weak backfoot movement, he just never uses the backfoot because he doesn't need to, as he is so big and massive at the crease.

Also, the fact that Hayden scored heavily against Warne & McGrath in domestic cricket for years on end is enough to prove that he'd be able to handle Marshall or Imran. I'd like to see how they'd react to a massive figure with a helmet on, walking down the pitch to them and hoisting them into the Grand Stand.

he is big and massive alright. but you will still have to have solid back foot technique to counter quality fast bowling. he doesnt have it.

warne is a leg spinner. mcgrath is a fast medium bowler. and hayden played them in FC cricket. marshall and imran are express fast bowlers. i am not saying hayden will get out first ball to them. but he is more likely to fail more often against them in test match situations than morris or trumper.

bowlers like marshall and imran would react to the massive figure walking down to the pitch to them with a couple of nasty bouncers that will push him back to the crease if his nose is not already broken.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

You really do have a warped view of what cricket was like in the days gone by don't you. You're convinced that none of the bowlers pre 1970 bowled at 90mph, you're convinced that that uncovered pitches weren't that bad, and now you're telling us that everyone in the 'olden days' took forever to score runs or take wickets. You really do post some utter drivel.

Atleast I'm realistic. You believe everything you hear and everything you think cricket wise that you haven't seen is an exaggerated myth. You don't think that the 'olden days' players didn't take forever? Look at the strike-rates of the bowlers and batsman from the eras I'm talking about. Haven't you ever heard of Geoff Boycott? Bill Lawry? Len Hutton?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

he is big and massive alright. but you will still have to have solid back foot technique to counter quality fast bowling. he doesnt have it.

warne is a leg spinner. mcgrath is a fast medium bowler. and hayden played them in FC cricket. marshall and imran are express fast bowlers. i am not saying hayden will get out first ball to them. but he is more likely to fail more often against them in test match situations than morris or trumper.

bowlers like marshall and imran would react to the massive figure walking down to the pitch to them with a couple of nasty bouncers that will push him back to the crease if his nose is not already broken.

Marshall wasn't fast. I've seen videos of him, he is of similar pace to Glenn McGrath and we all saw what Hayden's done to bowlers of that pace. Imran also isn't as fast as Shoaib, who Hayden got the better of in 2002, when Shoaib was at his peak. Imran is a similar sort've bowler to Bond and Hayden scored runs against Bond.

 

[King Pietersen]

Atleast I'm realistic. You believe everything you hear and everything you think cricket wise that you haven't seen is an exaggerated myth. You don't think that the 'olden days' players didn't take forever? Look at the strike-rates of the bowlers and batsman from the eras I'm talking about. Haven't you ever heard of Geoff Boycott? Bill Lawry? Len Hutton?

You're not realistic, you're incredibly dismissive. Your opinion is final, there's no movement there at all. You could be handed fact after fact, expert opinion after expert opinion, video clip after video clip, and your view still wouldn't change.

As for the strike rates point, it's drivel. Sure there were players that batted slowly in the past eras, but if you honestly think that everyone was the same, then you're very mistaken. I also don't know where you've got the idea that bowlers took lots of deliveries to get wickets. If you take all bowlers in Test cricket that have taken at least 100 wickets, and then sorted by strike rate, there are only 2 guys in the list that are still playing, and one of them, Shoaib Akhtar is holding onto his career by a thread. The top 15 in the history of the game are:

1. GA Lohmann
2. Dale Steyn
3. Sydney Barnes
4. Waqar Younis
5. Johnny Briggs
6. Charlie Blythe
7. Shoaib Akhtar
8. Malcolm Marshall
9. Allan Donald
10. Colin Croft
11. Fred Trueman
12. Joel Garner
13. Richard Hadlee
14. Michael Holding
15. Charlie Turner

Then if we look at the top 10 batsmen in order of strike rate with a minimum of 2000 Test runs, the order looks like:

1. Adam Gilchrist
2. Kapil Dev
3. Virender Sehwag
4. Clem Hill
5. Victor Trumper
6. IVA Richards
7. Charles Macartney
8. Herbie Taylor
9. Sanath Jayasuriya
10. Roy McLean

3 of the top 10 are from the modern era, and only 1 still playing Test cricket. To sum up, you're talking rubbish. Again.

 

[bagapath]

Marshall wasn't fast. I've seen videos of him, he is of similar pace to Glenn McGrath and we all saw what Hayden's done to bowlers of that pace. Imran also isn't as fast as Shoaib, who Hayden got the better of in 2002, when Shoaib was at his peak. Imran is a similar sort've bowler to Bond and Hayden scored runs against Bond.

i have nothing more to say!!!

 

[Manee]

Marshall wasn't fast. I've seen videos of him, he is of similar pace to Glenn McGrath and we all saw what Hayden's done to bowlers of that pace.

Marshall was at the very least, often around 140kph, I'm not too sure how you can think otherwise. Of course, there is little proof to give, except testimony from people who saw him live and faced him and the common consensus is that he was a fair lick quicker than fast-medium. Moreover, is pace all that is important? Marshall got prodigious swing and varied his tricks with brilliant effectiveness.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

You're not realistic, you're incredibly dismissive. Your opinion is final, there's no movement there at all. You could be handed fact after fact, expert opinion after expert opinion, video clip after video clip, and your view still wouldn't change.

As for the strike rates point, it's drivel. Sure there were players that batted slowly in the past eras, but if you honestly think that everyone was the same, then you're very mistaken. I also don't know where you've got the idea that bowlers took lots of deliveries to get wickets. If you take all bowlers in Test cricket that have taken at least 100 wickets, and then sorted by strike rate, there are only 2 guys in the list that are still playing, and one of them, Shoaib Akhtar is holding onto his career by a thread. The top 15 in the history of the game are:

1. GA Lohmann
2. Dale Steyn
3. Sydney Barnes
4. Waqar Younis
5. Johnny Briggs
6. Charlie Blythe
7. Shoaib Akhtar
8. Malcolm Marshall
9. Allan Donald
10. Colin Croft
11. Fred Trueman
12. Joel Garner
13. Richard Hadlee
14. Michael Holding
15. Charlie Turner

Then if we look at the top 10 batsmen in order of strike rate with a minimum of 2000 Test runs, the order looks like:

1. Adam Gilchrist
2. Kapil Dev
3. Virender Sehwag
4. Clem Hill
5. Victor Trumper
6. IVA Richards
7. Charles Macartney
8. Herbie Taylor
9. Sanath Jayasuriya
10. Roy McLean

3 of the top 10 are from the modern era, and only 1 still playing Test cricket. To sum up, you're talking rubbish. Again.

A few glaring exceptions should never make up for the majority. Most of those stats aren't even precise. Perhaps thats why Trumper and co are so highly rated - because they scored so fast. I mean, that's Gilchrist is rated to highly by some and from an entertainment point of view, he is, but from a cricketing standpoint, he isn't. Interesting as to why Clem Hill isn't rated above Trumper though.

 

[The Sean]

Marshall wasn't fast. I've seen videos of him, he is of similar pace to Glenn McGrath

I'm assuming these videos were from about 1996?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I'm assuming these videos were from about 1996?

Mid-Late 1980s

 

[King Pietersen]

Need to get your eyes tested then.

 

[Manee]

Mid-Late 1980s

Take this objectively. You show a video to 100 people, 99 people reach conclusion A and one person reaches conclusion B, it is most likely that conclusion A is correct - no?

 

[King Pietersen]

No Manee. You're forgetting something. Ben's always right

 

[Manee]

Tbh, I thought he let the "Marshall is a trundler" thing go.