Would Ponting make an Aussie all-time XI?

[TheJediBrah]

Ashton Turner should bat 7 in that line-up IMO, not 9

 

[Prince EWS]

Ashton Turner should bat 7 in that line-up IMO, not 9

Nah he's there to bowl* his offies. @Kippax old avatar to confirm.

 

[bagapath]

Ponting was a superb no.3; but he cant compete with Bradman for that place. So his preferred position is ruled out.

For no 4 Smith and G Chappell have the edge over him.

At no 5 or 6 Border and S Waugh are better choices. Their game - more graft and totally frills free - suited the position better. Or go with one of them and choose Miller who was a good enough bat to come in ahead of Gilchrist.

I won't consider him to open the innings, coz he was not one.

His best bet would be to come in at 4. I would go with G Chappell but won't blame anyone choosing Punter over Smith or G Chappell.

 

[Slifer]

The better question should've been "could " Ponting make an Oz XI. With the resounding answer being yes.

 

[Prince EWS]

The better question should've been "could " Ponting make an Oz XI. With the resounding answer being yes.

If almost everyone agrees then surely it's not really a better question.

 

[subshakerz]

Sehwag is as good as Hayden who is probably the best Aussie opening bat since WW1. I'm not going back since Trumper because the game is entirely different.

Sehwag can be justified given the strength and depth of the rest of the Indian batting. Just sucked in England/SA/NZ.

 

[subshakerz]

When Migara comes up with weird **** you can usually see he's just biased towards countries he likes / biased against countries he doesn't. People take me more seriously than him because they can see I came with what I valued first, then tried to apply it historically through a lot of time and effort. People usually disagree anyway but I guess they think it might be a more interesting discussion than 'Murali was one of the best fielders in the 90s', 'Dhamasena was a revolutionary batsman because he picked the doosra' etc.

My method isn't perfect - I can see what it can't take into account or where it over- or under-rates certain performances and I make manual adjustments (you'll see my batting and bowling lists are quite different to what it actually spits out), but I think it's a good base.

Most of the criticism I get is for it valuing longevity too much, but that's just because I value longevity more than most of the forum. That's alright. The standardised averages themselves though usually get a good wrap when people look through the process.. at the very least most people seem to agree they usually give a more accurate picture than the scorebook averages, which was the point of it.

In terms of Lillee himself, I don't actually think he was worse than Siddle or my main man Matty Hoggard, but his average standardises to 28. When you play the equivalent of an 8-year Test career, with 63% of your games at home, in a bowling era, in conditions that generally favour you, and you still only average ~24, you're basically Jadeja without the batting. That don't impress me much.

I'm happy to say it probably punishes players a little too much for playing a disproportionate amount of games at home, and it also fails to take into account what he did in WSC which is IMO where a lot of his justified rating comes from. But I do think he was massively over-rated because he was the leader of a good Australian attack, had a marketable personality, muh swagger etc.

Even tho a bit overrated, It is pretty clear that Lillee was an elite ATG pacer who only suffers from lack of opportunities outside home. Other ATGs swear by his skills. And taking 5 wickets a test is an achievement regardless of where.

Comparing him to Jadeja who can't win a game outside SC to save his life is an insult.

 

[subshakerz]

Ponting was a superb no.3; but he cant compete with Bradman for that place. So his preferred position is ruled out.

For no 4 Smith and G Chappell have the edge over him.

At no 5 or 6 Border and S Waugh are better choices. Their game - more graft and totally frills free - suited the position better. Or go with one of them and choose Miller who was a good enough bat to come in ahead of Gilchrist.

I won't consider him to open the innings, coz he was not one.

His best bet would be to come in at 4. I would go with G Chappell but won't blame anyone choosing Punter over Smith or G Chappell.

Keith Miller is my no.6 which means no Ponting.

Openers - Hayden, Simpson, Trumper, etc.
Bradman
Chappell
Smith
Miller
Gilly
Warne
OReilly
Lillee
McGrath

Punter vs Chappell is close but Chappell didn't have an extended dip like Ponting plus his horrible record in India.

 

[Coronis]

imo its a big mistake having Miller in there. You’re decreasing both the batting and bowling quality to have an extra spinner, which isn’t that useful on most pitches (obviously some exceptions but basing this on a general ATG XI)

Hayden
Simpson
Bradman*
Chappell
Ponting
Border
Gilchrist+
Warne
Davidson
Lillee
McGrath

would be mine for those who are wondering (Smith and Cummins in there instead soon)

 

[Prince EWS]

imo its a big mistake having Miller in there. You’re decreasing both the batting and bowling quality to have an extra spinner, which isn’t that useful on most pitches (obviously some exceptions but basing this on a general ATG XI)

Hayden
Simpson
Bradman*
Chappell
Ponting
Border
Gilchrist+
Warne
Davidson
Lillee
McGrath

would be mine for those who are wondering (Smith and Cummins in there instead soon)

Nah I want to do it to have a fourth quick.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

I would have Miller at 8.
Trumper
Hayden
Bradman*
Smith
Chappell
Border
Gilchrist+
Miller
Lillee
O’Reilly
McGrath

 

[Bitmap]

Hayden
Simpson
Bradman
Ponting
Smith
Miller
Gilchrist+
Warne
Lillee
O'Reilly
McGrath

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ponting > Chappell so he'd make the xi for me. Ponting is slated for failing at a challenge Chappell didn't even really have to face.

Hayden
Trumper
Bradman
Smith
Ponting
Border
Gilchrist
Miller
Warne
Cummins/Lillee
McGrath

 

[Coronis]

Nah I want to do it to have a fourth quick.

Eh still feels like the payoff isn’t worth it for me, feels too much like rubbing the batting advantage Australia has, but to each their own. Maybe I should put Waugh in over Border for the medium pace over spin.

 

[Gob]

When Migara comes up with weird **** you can usually see he's just biased towards countries he likes / biased against countries he doesn't. People take me more seriously than him because they can see I came with what I valued first, then tried to apply it historically through a lot of time and effort. People usually disagree anyway but I guess they think it might be a more interesting discussion than 'Murali was one of the best fielders in the 90s', 'Dhamasena was a revolutionary batsman because he picked the doosra' etc.

My method isn't perfect - I can see what it can't take into account or where it over- or under-rates certain performances and I make manual adjustments (you'll see my batting and bowling lists are quite different to what it actually spits out), but I think it's a good base.

Most of the criticism I get is for it valuing longevity too much, but that's just because I value longevity more than most of the forum. That's alright. The standardised averages themselves though usually get a good wrap when people look through the process.. at the very least most people seem to agree they usually give a more accurate picture than the scorebook averages, which was the point of it.

In terms of Lillee himself, I don't actually think he was worse than Siddle or my main man Matty Hoggard, but his average standardises to 28. When you play the equivalent of an 8-year Test career, with 63% of your games at home, in a bowling era, in conditions that generally favour you, and you still only average ~24, you're basically Jadeja without the batting. That don't impress me much.

I'm happy to say it probably punishes players a little too much for playing a disproportionate amount of games at home, and it also fails to take into account what he did in WSC which is IMO where a lot of his justified rating comes from. But I do think he was massively over-rated because he was the leader of a good Australian attack, had a marketable personality, muh swagger etc.

That changes from person to person though with different weights given to different aspects by different people

As for Lillee, it was quiet obvious to me he was a great bowler. I have never gone down the road of standardising but I see he has statistics of an ATG (not the best average but still under 23 and over five wickets per match), I watch his footages (was before my time) and I could see the obvious skills at display, I can read and listen to peer ratings, I could consider the levels of skills that you requires to come back from the injury he faced and to completely change his bowling style to be still successful, all of this points to me that Lillee was indeed one of the very best. If Lillee or some one of his status ends up with standardised averages like that (which is an anomaly), I'd sooner take a good look at the methodology than all of the sudden starting to disbelieve something so palpable. This is not a cheap shot at all the efforts you have put in to your work just how I see it.
Ftr, how do you rate players? Is it all stats based?

 

[ankitj]

1 Trumper
2 Simpson
3 Bradman
4 Chappell
5 Border
6 Miller
7 Gilchrist
8 Davidson
9 Lindwall
10 Warne
11 McGrath

Ponting would probably make a second XI but Lillee and Hayden fans can cry harder about them not even making that.

I'm not going to consider Cummins or Smith until after they retire and I can let the dust settle, do some better analysis etc but I reckon they'll both end up in there. Cummins in particular would probably have Lindwall's spot even if he went wicketless for ten consecutive Tests from here and then retired in shame.

You rate Trumper? Shocking.

 

[subshakerz]

imo its a big mistake having Miller in there. You’re decreasing both the batting and bowling quality to have an extra spinner, which isn’t that useful on most pitches (obviously some exceptions but basing this on a general ATG XI)

Hayden
Simpson
Bradman*
Chappell
Ponting
Border
Gilchrist+
Warne
Davidson
Lillee
McGrath

would be mine for those who are wondering (Smith and Cummins in there instead soon)

Nah I completely disagree. Adding Miller is what makes the Aussie ATG XI the greatest ever. It is absolutely essential to have 5 regular bowling options and Miller ensures you have a worldclass third seamer.

McGrath, Lillee, Miller, OReilly and Warne is an all conditions attack of sustained quality. I am happy to add Cummins in place of OReilly when he crosses the threshold.

You already have Bradman and Gilly to shore up the middle/late order. Miller at 6 is a luxury bat.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah I completely disagree. Adding Miller is what makes the Aussie ATG XI the greatest ever. It is absolutely essential to have 5 regular bowling options and Miller ensures you have a worldclass third seamer.

Yeah I think it's a no brainer when you have Gilly to pick an allrounder.

If the keeper was gonna be Healy or Tallon I'd definitely think about six bats, but Gilly locked in Miller's place in that side IMO.

(if it was gonna be Tallon I'd think about picking Miller at 7 anyway tbh)

 

[Coronis]

Nah I completely disagree. Adding Miller is what makes the Aussie ATG XI the greatest ever. It is absolutely essential to have 5 regular bowling options and Miller ensures you have a worldclass third seamer.

McGrath, Lillee, Miller, OReilly and Warne is an all conditions attack of sustained quality. I am happy to add Cummins in place of OReilly when he crosses the threshold.

You already have Bradman and Gilly to shore up the middle/late order. Miller at 6 is a luxury bat.

As shown by all the greatest teams in history having 5 regular bowlers…

 

[Prince EWS]

That changes from person to person though with different weights given to different aspects by different people

As for Lillee, it was quiet obvious to me he was a great bowler. I have never gone down the road of standardising but I see he has statistics of an ATG (not the best average but still under 23 and over five wickets per match), I watch his footages (was before my time) and I could see the obvious skills at display, I can read and listen to peer ratings, I could consider the levels of skills that you requires to come back from the injury he faced and to completely change his bowling style to be still successful, all of this points to me that Lillee was indeed one of the very best. If Lillee or some one of his status ends up with standardised averages like that (which is an anomaly), I'd sooner take a good look at the methodology than all of the sudden starting to disbelieve something so palpable. This is not a cheap shot at all the efforts you have put in to your work just how I see it.
Ftr, how do you rate players? Is it all stats based?

I think it is a bit of an anomaly, I rate him a fair bit higher than it tells me to (I don't really think he was worse than Hoggard, Siddle, Streak etc). But when it's so exaggerated then it's telling us *something* interesting, IMO.

If he got exactly the same results in every game he played but bowled like Philander I reckon people would think my project was exposing a deep truth. People like these things to confirm their biases. Lillee looked like he should've been gun, and his raw stats look gun, but in context his performances were ATVG at best (at least excluding WSC).