Watson's All-Time-Great Ashes Contest

[The Battlers Prince]

That being said Miller rarely batted at 6 as well, though he didn't open and bat first drop as often as Noble though. Definitely worth a mention offering that spin balance as opposed to Millers pace. Very interested to see which way you go.

 

[watson]

Australia's No.11: Bill O'Reilly

It is not much of an exaggeration to state that Bill O’Reilly was to Australia’s bowling in the 1930s what Don Bradman was to its batting.

Consider the facts - during a decade of sustained run making the Australian bowlers took 355 English wickets. Out of those 355 wickets Bill O’Reilly took 102 of them. This represents an astounding 28% of the total, or in round terms more than a quarter.

What’s more, O’Reilly was the only bowler, apart from Bert Ironmonger, who averaged under 30 runs per wicket. However, Bert Ironmonger played only 4 Test matches, and so his impact was minimal in comparison. Not even O’Reilly’s bowling partner Grimmett came close to matching O’Reilly during the 1930s. Here is a breakdown of Australia’s main bowlers for the decade;

Bill O’Reilly
Wickets = 102
Ave = 25.36
SR = 77.0

Clarrie Grimmett
Wickets = 59
Ave = 32.52
SR = 90.8

Tim Wall
Wickets = 35
Ave = 42.11
SR = 98.00

Chuck Fleetwood-Smith
Wickets = 33
Ave = 36.06
SR = 71.4

Ernie McCormick
Wickets = 21
Ave = 31.47
SR = 64.5

Stan McCabe
Wickets = 21
Ave = 51.23
SR = 123.00

Bert Ironmonger
Wickets = 14
Ave = 27.00
SR = 98.00

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that Don Bradman wrote in 1992;

Although only slow medium, his bowling was accurately described by Hassett as “savage aggression”. Attack was his creed and there was never any respite from his relentless accuracy. Without doubt, he was the best bowler I ever faced or saw.

Cited in ‘The 100 Greatest Crciketers’ by Geoff Armstrong,

In 1938 Bradman discussed the bowling styles of O’Reilly and Sydney Barnes with the author Neville Cardus, and stated;

I never saw Barnes, so I could not speak of how he bowled the leg-spinner. I only know that O’Reilly bowls it as well as I can imagine anyone bowling it. It couldn’t possibly be nastier.

Cited in ‘Bradman’s Best Ashes Teams’ by Roland Perry

Walter Hammond appears to agree with Lindsay Hassett’s and Bradman’s summations in his own description of O’Reilly’s bowling;

O’Reilly makes the ball jump up off the pitch better than any slow bowler I have met in my long career. He also has a shattering loud ‘appeal’; it has once or twice almost made me jump out of my skin when I was absorbed in thinking about my batting. He told me once that in his first Test, he failed to appeal for an LBW, and the umpire took him aside afterwards and told him what he had missed! He never failed to appeal again, and always, in his strident voice, you could hear the agony of that rememberence!

‘The Tiger’, as they called him Australia, took a long run to the wicket, and it was rather uncanny at first to watch this 6-ft 3-in athlete gallop to the wicket, snarling with all his teeth, whirl his long and powerful arms – and produce a slow ball that only ‘fired’ when it left the pitch. The mountain laboured and bought forth a mouse – but the mouse tweaked under the bat and knocked down the wicket!

‘Cricket My World’

In his entire career Bill O’Reilly played 27 Test matches and took 144 wickets at 22.60. His Strike Rate was 69.61. However, whether these numbers are impressive or not misses the point. Bill O’Reilly dominated the Australian bowling attack for the best part of a decade, and stood unchallenged as Australia’s best and greatest bowler in the mind of the Australian public for nearly 35 years until Dennis Lillee and then Shane Warne came along. As a spin bowling icon he is an absolute must for this Ashes team.

 

[watson]

I'm finding it hard to pick the number 6 for the English. I'm gonna guess Greigy.
For the Aussies I'm confident about Waugh, but there are other choices but for number 6 I think only Miller would be the other choice, required as a bowler to allow a second spinner?

Exciting sides so far.

Thanks schearzie for the compliment.

Tony Greig is England's second best all-time allrounder in my opinion, who bats better than Botham but doesn't bowl any where near as good. However, in this Ashes team so far we have Hammond and Dexter, and I can't imagine Grieg being able to bowl that much better than either of those gentleman. Therefore, I think that 2 medium pacers is probably enough. Greig did bowl some off spin on occasion, but I can't imagine his tweakers troubling any of Australia's ATG bats for more than 3 minutes.

 

[watson]

England's No.9: John Snow

Harold Larwood, Fred Trueman, and Bob Willis are by most accounts England’s greatest fast bowlers, with Fred Trueman probably the most acclaimed of the three.

However, many Australians who watched cricket in the early 70s would simply disagree. For them, John Snow is the greatest English fast bowler of all time. Critics might disagree with the title of greatest because he claimed 'only’ 202 Test wickets, but if he can’t be called the greatest then he can still be proclaimed the best.

Alan McGilvray was an iconic cricket commentator for the ABC who called every Test match from the Second World War to 1985 when he retired. He selected two ‘fantasy’ Ashes teams in 1987 and had this to say;

The most interesting omissions there, perhaps, would be the tempestuous Freddie Trueman, who picked up more than 300 wickets through the ‘sixties, and off spinner Jim Laker, who took 19 wickets in one Test in 1956 and finished up with 46 for the series. On the first count, Freddie was certainly a fine bowler and it is difficult to leave him out. But he did not have the same strike power that Alec Bedser, in his prime, and John Snow had. Bedser had marvellous control of the ball, and got plenty of wickets against perhaps the best batting side Australia has ever fielded. Snow had that rare capacity to make the ball rise sharply off a good length, and for all Freddie’s fire and fury, Snow was simply a better bowler.

‘The Game Goes On...’

McGilvray’s English counterpart John Arlott watched Snow operate in 1972 and wrote;

His true value lay in his ability to turn the course of a match, to pin down, or even defeat, batsman who seemed in control….He has the true fast bowlers ability to cut into the start of the innings and to destroy the tail.

‘The Ashes 1972’

Unfortunately, John Snow had more than his far share of run-ins with England’s cricket administrators, and in one instance even had a literal run-in with Sunny Gavaskar in an ugly incident during the Lords Test of 1971. Snow’s recalcitrant attitude meant that he played in only 49 Test matches out of a possible 103 from 1965 to 1976.

However, in two Ashes series in 1970/71 and 1972 he reached his ‘technical and tempermental peak’. In 1972 he took 24 wickets at 23.12 against Ian Chappell’s team, but it was for efforts during the 1970/71 series that he will be remembered the most. Not since Harold Larwood’s Bodyline tour had an English fast bowler dominated an Ashes contest. At the end of 1971 Ian Chappell looked back and wrote;

In our last major international encounters, Australia has been on the run due to two outstanding pace bowlers with the great ability to break the back of a side before it can make any sort of start….I refer to Mike Procter and John Snow, who probably stand on their own above the current batch of speedsters….Snow conserves his energy into bursts, but has a stylish approach and delivery. Both have the power to get the ball to lift when the batsman least suspects it.

‘Australian Cricket Yearbook 1971’

Snow dismissed Ian Chappell 5 times in that series on his way to finishing with a total of 31 wickets at 22.84 runs a piece, and in the process carry out his own philosophy to the nth degree;

I've a streak of hardness but I wouldn't call it meanness. The bouncer in my book is legitimate intimidation. If a batsman carpets me for four or hits me out of the ground he's got to expect retribution and he should be able to handle it if he knows his technique. If he does not he's no business to be there. A fast bowler who doesn't get results has no future.

Wisden - John Snow

Overall, John Snow collected 202 Test wickets at an average of 26.67 against some formidable Australian and West Indian batsman who also happened to be his most frequent opponents. He will therefore spearhead the attack for this ATG Ashes team.

 

[watson]

Teams so far;

England XI
01. Jack Hobbs
02.
03. Ted Dexter
04. Ken Barrington
05. Walter Hammond
06.
07. Alan Knott
08. Hedley Verity
09. John Snow
10. Alec Bedser
11.

Australia XI
01. Bob Simpson
02.
03. Don Bradman
04. Greg Chappell
05. Allan Border
06.
07. Adam Gilchrist
08.
09. Ray Lindwall
10.
11. Bill O'Reilly

 

[watson]

Here is some footage of Snow from 1971. At just after the 1 minute mark he knocks over Ian Chappell with his classic delivery - a ball that kicks at the face of the batsman from short-of-a-length;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl4Oy73D3sk

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I absolutely was convinced you'd go with Trueman, which I thought would be the wrong choice. Snow is the perfect man.
As Cricinfo says:

Assaulted on the boundary edge of a great Test arena, dropped by his county for lack of effort, stood in a corner by England's selectors for barging over an Indian Test batsman at Lord's and while all this was swirling around him, writing and getting published a volume of poems -- controversy, thy name was Snow, in the early 1970's.

Love a larrikin, but also his fire when he bowled, he seemed like a terror to face. Like facing Flintoff at times in '05. But a fine bowler to have in a side to add that X factor.

 

[watson]

England's No.2: Len Hutton

Many times, since the war, I have seen it stated that Len Hutton is not the player to open for England; that he has no ‘Test match temperment’. How often they used to say it of me too; and of Pat Hendren; and how often indeed, of Edrich! Something similar was perhaps said of Bradman when he was dropped by the Australian selectors after his first Test. It is a very comforting and explanatory phrase for those who sit on high in judgement; it means very little indeed. Sutcliffe discovered Hutton in Pudsey, the Yorkshire town which has produced more cricket heroes to the square mile than any other in the world, claiming, besides these two giants, ‘Long John’ Tunnicliffe, who once taught me how to play cricket in endless hours at Bristol.

In my opinion, Hutton is as great as the other two, and we shall hear more of him in the future.

Walter Hammond, ‘Cricket My World’ (1947)

Walter Hammond was correct on both accounts – a lot more was indeed heard from Len Hutton post-war, and he was every bit as great as Herbert Sutcliffe.

After looking at the careers of these great opening batsman it is very difficult to find a compelling case to prefer one over the other. Sutcliffe played 54 Test matches between 1924 and 1935 and finished with an average of 60.73.The average is impressive enough, but he also managed to average more than 50 in every series that he played against Australia;

1924-35 = 81.56
1926 = 78.67
1928-29 = 50.71
1930 = 87.20
1932-33 = 55.00
1934 = 50.67

Len Hutton made cricket’s most famous Big Score when he compiled his 364 runs at The Oval in 1938, and after 21 innings prior to WWII averaged 67.25. However, it is his post-war clashes with Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller that sets him apart;

Hutton V Lindwall & Miller, 1946-55
Average = 50.86 in AUS (15 Tests)
Average = 49.06 in ENG (9 Tests)

(Note: Career Average = 56.67 over 79 Tests)

Of course Sutcliffe cannot help it if he doesn’t have Lindwall and Miller on his CV, and of course he can boast success against the fast bowling of Jack Gregory. However, Sutcliffe never faced Gregory and Ted McDonald together as Ted McDonald played his last series against England in 1921 - 3 years before Sutcliffe came along. For the record, McDonald took 27 wickets at 24.74 in that series.

However, that is the only way that I can split Hutton and Sutcliffe as opening batsman – Hutton faced a pair of great fast bowlers operating at their peak for several years, and Sutcliffe didn’t (no offence to Nissar and Singh et al intended). Picky I know, but both batsman are really that good, and that close.

So, Jack Hobbs will be paired with Len Hutton rather than his usual partner Herbert Sutcliffe in this Ashes team. However, I don’t think that the change is too dramatic. One dour and courageous Yorkshireman has merely replaced another dour and courageous Yorkshireman.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

So, Hobbs and Hutton, fair enough. Hobbs is the best of the lot and yet I don't think much would be lost if you went with the other two guys there. Hutton is a great choice.

 

[watson]

Australia's No.6: Keith Miller

English critics were particularly impressed by his style: it was so peculiarly English. It was based on forward play, crowned with that most supreme of cricket strokes, the drive. His repertoire was extensive. He had a thrilling cut, embellished at times with, for such a huge frame, a very delicate late cut. He played shots on both sides of the wicket but it was the drive, particularly the cover drive played with an authoritative, upright stance, that was to become his signature tune. Yet his tendemcy to lunge forward did get him into trouble. Often he lunged so far forward that he overbalanced and fell. Over the years Miller’s batting was to change in only one respect: he discarded the hook. And the man who was intimately associated with bumpers was uncomfortable against them. ‘Miller cut rather an inept figure himself against the bouncer. He didn’t like them,’ as Fingleton wrote years later.

Mihir Bose, ‘Keith Miller: A Cricketing Biography’ (1979)

When Keith Miller was on-song he could out-bat anyone in the Australian team, Bradman included, such was his power and range of strokes. But as Miller’s biographer implies, he was not without his technical flaws. That they exist is proven by his record against English bowlers, especially in English conditions where his series average failed to break out of the mid-20s in three attempts;

Batting: Miller V ENG
AUS 1946-47 = 76.80 (HS 141*)
ENG 1948 = 26.29 (HS 67)
AUS 1950-51 = 43.73 (HS 145*)
ENG 1953 = 24.87 (HS 109)
AUS 1954-55 - 23.86 (HS 49)
ENG 1956 = 22.56 (HS 61)

(Note: Career average = 36.98 after 55 Tests)

However, it is primarily for his fast bowling that Miller makes this Ashes team despite batting at No.6;

Bowling: Miller V ENG
AUS 1946-47 = 16 wickets at 20.88
ENG 1948 = 9 wickets at 24.78
AUS 1950-51 = 17 wickets at 17.71
ENG 1953 = 10 wickets at 30.30
AUS 1954-55 = 20 wickets at 32.05
ENG 1956 = 21 wickets at 22.24
TOTAL = 87 wickets at 22.40

(Note: Career bowling figures = 177 wickets at 22.98. SR = 61.54, 5w = 7, 10w = 1)

Clearly, it was difficult for Miller to dominate a series with the ball because he had stiff competition for wickets in the form of Ray Lindwall and Bill Johnston. However, a bowling average of less than 23 runs against England and everyone else, indicates that he was an ATG bowler none-the-less.

As a bowler, Miller’s strongest trait was his unpredictability. I’m sure he often had no preconceived idea what he intended to bowl even as he turned to start his run,’ claimed Denis Compton. ‘As a batsman you never knew what was coming. It could be as fast a ball as anyone was entitled to expect on this planet, a slow leg-break, a bouncer, or fast back-break off an immaculate length, which would land outside the off stump and, if missed with the bat, would smack the legs.’ The Rev. David Shepherd, a Test opening bat of much ability, was once bowled by a Miller wrong’un at Lords. Len Hutton, who reckoned he never saw a bowler who cared less about where his mark was, also commented that, ‘I never left physically safe against him.’

Cited in ‘The 100 Greatest Cricketers’ by Geoff Armstrong.

That Miller’s unusual method worked is also proven by the list of top class, top order batsman that he dismissed. Here are some of them in order of frequency;

Len Hutton – 10
Denis Compton – 8
Bill Edrich – 4
Cyril Washbrook – 4
David Shepherd – 4
Tom Graveney – 4
Willie Watson – 4
Peter May – 3
Frank Worrell – 3
Jeff Stollmeyer – 3
Clyde Walcott – 3
Peter Richardson -3
Dudley Nourse -2
Vijay Hazare – 2
Colin Cowdrey - 2

Keith Miller is therefore selected in this team because his volatile talents enable him to be a match-winner, or a game-breaker, with either the bat, ball, or catching in the slips. Admittedly, centuries are less likely than top order wickets, but with Bradman at No.3 and Gilchrist at No.7, this hardly seems to matter.

 

[watson]

Teams so far;

England XI
01. Jack Hobbs
02. Len Hutton
03. Ted Dexter
04. Ken Barrington
05. Walter Hammond
06.
07. Alan Knott
08. Hedley Verity
09. John Snow
10. Alec Bedser
11.

Australia XI
01. Bob Simpson
02.
03. Don Bradman
04. Greg Chappell
05. Allan Border
06. Keith Miller
07. Adam Gilchrist
08.
09. Ray Lindwall
10.
11. Bill O'Reilly

 

[watson]

As odd as it sounds - I think that Keith Miller and Ted Dexter are probably the weakest players selected so far, at least on paper.

 

[kyear2]

As odd as it sounds - I think that Keith Miller and Ted Dexter are probably the weakest players selected so far, at least on paper.

Miller yes, I think though that Verity is the weak link of rthe English side.

 

[watson]

Miller yes, I think though that Verity is the weak link of rthe English side.

Verity did have one awful series against Australia in 1936/37 when he took few wickets. However, his Economy Rate for that series was brilliant (1.74), so at least he was still bowling line and length and keeping the pressure on. But as said before, Verity and Bedser are both in the team because of their records against Bradman.

I did consider Underwood as a possible alternative to Verity because they are similar spin bowlers - fast, accurate, left-armers. However, Underwood also had his problems in Australia. In 1970-71 he was downright ordinary by most accounts (Ave = 32, SR = 97), and he wasn't that much better in 1974-75, or 1979-80 either. In fact, I think that Underwood is generally over-rated as he is too 'pitch specific' - ie. wet.

 

[kyear2]

His overall strike rate of over 77 and a WPM of 3.6 for a spinner just isn't good enough. Additionally his average of 28, SR of 83 and WPM of 3.3 vs Australia doesn't inspire confidence in such an XI.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

As odd as it sounds - I think that Keith Miller and Ted Dexter are probably the weakest players selected so far, at least on paper.

Oddly enough, I agree, yet Miller is my favourite player of the bygone era. But on paper, you're right

 

[watson]

His overall strike rate of over 77 and a WPM of 3.6 for a spinner just isn't good enough. Additionally his average of 28, SR of 83 and WPM of 3.3 vs Australia doesn't inspire confidence in such an XI.

Fair enough. So that leaves Jim Laker or Wilfred Rhodes. However, neither of those batsman could realistically hold down the No.8 spot in the batting order - bearing in mind that when Rhodes was taking wickets he was a true tailender.

Verity wasn't an allrounder in any way, but by the same token his techique was sound enough to be chosen as a opener on his own merits.

Also, Laker took 9 wickets at 52.44 against Bradman's 1948 team. Not much can be read into this because Laker was inexperienced at the time. However, Bradman admitted to 'fancying' the off-spinner, and so I still have a suspicion that Bradman would belt him out the attack on anything but a helpful wicket. I can't find any evidence that Bradman belted Verity out of the attack.

 

[watson]

Australia's No.8: Richie Benaud

During his career Richie Benaud claimed 248 wicket at 27.03 (SR = 77.0). However, these figures are misleading. In 1952 he was selected as an attacking ‘batting-allrounder’. That is, a batsman who also bowled some useful leg-spin. Consequently, his initial bowling figures were pretty awful. However, Benaud was determined to turn himself into a world class leg-spinner, and after about 2 ½ years he had achieved his goal. In effect, from 1954 onwards he was a strike bowler who was also capable of scoring a century – a ‘bowling-allrounder’.

Also, during the 1960-61 series against the West Indies he complained of shoulder pain. This gradually grew worse, and Benaud was finally diagnosed with fibrositis of his right shoulder. By 1962 the pain caused by the fibrositis badly effected his bowling, and this shown in the poor averages of his last 2 series.

Therefore, in order to calculate Benaud’s 'real' bowling figures we should only really consider the middle 7 years of his career. Here are his series results from those 7 years;

1954-55 WIN V AUS: Wickets = 18, Ave = 26.94, SR = 61.61
1956-57 AUS V IND: Wickets = 23, Ave = 16.87, SR = 44.30
1957-58 SAF V AUS: Wickets = 30, Ave = 21.93, SR = 64.57
1958-59 AUS V ENG: Wickets = 31, Ave = 18.84, SR = 60.19
1959-60 PAK V AUS: Wickets = 18, Ave = 21.11, SR = 74.67
1959-60 IND V AUS: Wickets = 29, Ave = 19.59, SR = 66.69
1960-61 AUS V WIN: Wickets = 23, Ave = 33.87, SR = 93.26
1961 ENG V AUS: Wickets = 15, Ave = 32.53, SR = 85.80 (Includes famous match winning 6/70 at Old Trafford)

If the series results are averaged out then they clearly indicate a genuinely great bowler, rather than merely a good bowler;

Benaud 1954-61
Tests = 40
Wickets = 192
Ave = 23.68
SR = 69.0
ER = 2.05
5w = 14
10w = 1

There was also the odd occasion where Benaud played like a great batsman as well as a great bowler. His greatest triumph as an allrounder was probably the 1957-58 series in South Africa when he scored 329 runs at 53.83 and took 30 wickets at 21.93. Importantly, those 329 runs included 2 centuries that were scored against none other than Adcock, Heine, Goddard and Tayfield! I don’t think that even Keith Miller matched that.

We can also get a sense of Benaud’s talent by judging the quality of batman that he dismissed. I don’t think that there’s much doubt that the array of batsman in the list are at least strong, if not stronger, than those offered by any other comparable spin bowler;

Cowdrey – 8
May – 8
Dexter – 7
Contractor – 6
Richardson – 5
T. Goddard – 5
Manjrekar – 4
Mankad – 4
Roy – 4
Weekes – 4
Endean – 4
Waite -4
Kanhai – 4
Barrington – 3
Shepherd – 3
Worrell – 3
Walcott – 3
Borde – 3
Sobers – 2
Graveney -2
McGlew -2
Bailey – 2
Umrigar – 2
O. Smith – 2
Compton – 2
Pullar – 2
Nurse – 2
Illingworth - 2
Lindsay – 2
Bland – 2
Subba Row - 2

Benaud was a classical 'leg-break googly' bowler, and so has been compared to his predecessors by a number of commentators. Roland Perry is one of them;

He fell between the styles of two great leggies, Arthur Mailey and Clarrie Grimmett. Benaud was never going to be the proliferate billionaire with the ball like Mailey, yet at times he was prepared to toss the ball up and tempt the batsman into having a heave-ho and he caused plenty of catches in the deep. Also like Mailey he could get bounce. Yet, on the whole, he was more like Grimmett, who used the top-spinner and wrong’un as surprises rather than stock deliveries, and who applied relentless pressure to batsman. Benaud worked on tying a batsman down and forcing error through adventurism or frustration. He could be pin-point accurate as the other great spinners, but was not afraid to vary his length to unsettle a batsman and keep him guessing. It was rare in Benaud’s career, particularly from the time of the 1956-57 tour of Pakistan and India (24 wickets at 17.66), and for the next seven years, for him to be smashed out of the attack. Not even the great Garry Sobers took control of him more than a couple of times in their many encounters.

‘Bradman’s Best Ashes Teams’

It is interesting that Perry commented on Benaud's accuracy ('pin-point accurate') because he doesn't seem to have that reputation. However, Benaud’s career Economy Rate of 2.11 clearly supports this observation. It is slightly better than Grimmett’s, and a deal better than Warne’s;

Career Economy Rates
Benaud = 2.11
Grimmett = 2.16
Warne = 2.65

When Ian Craig fell ill at the start of the 1958-59 season, Benaud was promoted to the captaincy ahead of vice-captain Neil Harvey, and he remained Australia’s captain till the end of the 1963/64 series against South Africa. His tenure began sensationally when charged with the task of wrestling back the Ashes from the favourites, England. Against the odds he led Australia to a 4-0 victory, thanks in part to his own contribution of 31 wickets at 18.84. Benaud never lost any of his 7 Test series as captain , and finished with a commendable record of 12 wins and 4 losses in 28 matches.

Mike Brearley rated Benaud’s captaincy highly, and described him as ‘One of the great captains’ in his book the ‘Art of Captaincy’;

One of the great captains, Richie Benaud learned much from playing for New South Wales under ‘the best captain never to lead Australia’ – Keith Miller, a fierce competitor who never allowed any game to atrophy. The same can be said of Benaud.

Benaud’s batting did pale in comparison to both his bowling and captaincy endeavours, however he still managed to score 2202 runs at a healthy average of 24.46. He made 3 centuries, 2 against South Africa and 1 against the West Indies. Against England specifically he managed 767 runs at 19.67 with 4 fifties, and a highest score of 97.

There is no argument that Shane Warne is the better leg-spinner of the two. However, after reviewing Benaud’s record, I don’t think that the gulf is that great. Therefore, I believe that Benaud as a total package is more valuable to this side than Warne. If this Ashes team was more conventional and contained only one spin bowler then Warne is the obvious choice. However, in this current scenario the spinner’s duties will be shared with Bill O’Reilly. Therefore, it really doesn’t matter too much that Benaud is slightly less consistent than Warne – Bill O’Reilly merely bowls more overs as necessary. And that’s not a bad thing!

By having Benaud in the team, Australia now has an ATG leg-spinner, one of crickets best bowling-allrounders, and its finest ever leader at the helm. Not a bad combination at all.

 

[watson]

Not sure of the England number 6, could be Botham (or Grieg).

Number 6 for Australia will be interesting. Picking Lindwall at 9 indicates the Australian Number 8 can bat as well (Benaud, Davidson, Miller)

Australia

06. Miller / Waugh / Armstrong
07. Gilchrist
08. Benaud / Davidson / Miller
09. Lindwall
10. Warne ???

A 6 - 11 of say Miller, Gilchrist, Benaud, Lindwall, Warne is a very dangerous middle / lower order and could score 200 runs on there day.

On the other hand Simpson, Chappel, Border where all useful bowlers (between them they averaged 1.5 -> 2 wickets a Test), add Steve Waugh and you have your "Batting allrounder".

I will guess Miller and Benaud for 6 / 8 for Australia. Given that Australia has Bradman + Gilchrist and 8 / 9 (and probably 10) batsment who could bat, I do not see the need for a specialist Batsman at 6.

Having 5 ATG bowlers is a huge advantage. In a genuine 5 man attack, on most days 4 bowlers will do most of the bowling but it will be a different set of 4 bowler's each day depending who is bowling the best on that Day. Having 5 ATG bowlers improves the consistency of the Bowling, there is no bowler you can rest against.

Martin picked it. Not a bad guess.

 

[Riggins]

Interesting decision to open the batting with Damien Martyn, but one I do support considering the rest of the make up of the team.