Best EVER australia Test XI - who would you pick

[Guest whineleg]

ok guyz, I dont remember very old players because I dont know anything about cricket and the sport is completely new to me even though I moan a lot but some names that may be in the Best Ever Australia Test XI Batsmen: 1. Donny Bradman 2. Ricky Ponting 3. Chappel?? (dunno anything abt him because dunno anything abt crket) 4,5,6 who else?? - we need opening batsmen (Hayden? Shaun Marsh?) All Rounder: 7. Andrew Symonds Keeper: 8. ??? Bowlers: 9. Brett Lee 10. Glen McGraath 11. Shane Warne / Simon Katich? Pls. help me pick the Best EVER australia Test XI becauze I dont know who to pick and I will cry about it if you dont

[Online]

take a bow!! :hysterical: P.S: for those who dont get it, click here: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=114607

[CC1981]

My shot at it : Lindsay Hasett ??? Sir Don Punter/Greg Chappell Tugga/Border Miller Gilly Davidson Warney/Benaud Lillee McGrath This is a deadly bowling combo, bats deep and has the Don in the lineup. probably beats any alltime side (with alltime WI and alltime Saffie XI perhaps giving them a run for their money) but the Don factor clinches it IMO. Over the span of a 5-match series, just can't deal with a guy who would probably put up atleast 600+ runs per series on average.

[Predator_05]

I'd go for; 1. Lawry 2. Hayden 3. Bradman 4. Border 5. Greg Chappell 6. Steve Waugh 7. Gilchrist+ 8. Miller 9. Warne 10. Lillee 11. McGrath

[CC1981]

Preds, after talking to many Aussie fans, it seems like one of (if not both) Arthur morris and Lindsay Hassett are a lock for opening position...rest tend to gravitate towards Matty but some old timers still swear by this combo and to be fair, that is hands down the most successful opening combo Aussies had before Hayden-Langer and this last 10 yrs. And IMO, Miller could hold a bat. If he can bat in the most successful Aussie team of alltime at #5, he can bat in the hypothetical one. IMO, Miller is the bombastic batsman, who'd be wasted down below. He was a crisp striker of the ball and had good technique,played in an aggressive way. #8 is too low for him...if you feel the batting needs shoring up, you have Davidson- who most definitely could hold a bat for a lower order bat and Further it up with either Warney or benaud- two bonafide lower order bats IMO, Benaud more so than Warney. Mind you, Davidson has a very good case of being, at the very least, third best Aussie seamer of alltime : his record is peerless and his accuracy legendary. Plus, he was much to Sobers what McGrath was to Lara: the prime nemesis and perpetual thorn in Sobers's side. And in there arnt many in the post war era who better his average as a bowler either. not to mention, he is a leftie and brings much saught-after variation in the side. I'd like to see a debate on Border vs Waugh though- to me they are hard to differentiate, i'd like to know why people adamantly pick one over the other.

[Predator_05]

Preds, after talking to many Aussie fans, it seems like one of (if not both) Arthur morris and Lindsay Hassett are a lock for opening position...rest tend to gravitate towards Matty but some old timers still swear by this combo and to be fair, that is hands down the most successful opening combo Aussies had before Hayden-Langer and this last 10 yrs. And IMO, Miller could hold a bat. If he can bat in the most successful Aussie team of alltime at #5, he can bat in the hypothetical one. IMO, Miller is the bombastic batsman, who'd be wasted down below. He was a crisp striker of the ball and had good technique,played in an aggressive way. #8 is too low for him...if you feel the batting needs shoring up, you have Davidson- who most definitely could hold a bat for a lower order bat and Further it up with either Warney or benaud- two bonafide lower order bats IMO, Benaud more so than Warney. Mind you, Davidson has a very good case of being, at the very least, third best Aussie seamer of alltime : his record is peerless and his accuracy legendary. Plus, he was much to Sobers what McGrath was to Lara: the prime nemesis and perpetual thorn in Sobers's side. And in there arnt many in the post war era who better his average as a bowler either. not to mention, he is a leftie and brings much saught-after variation in the side. I'd like to see a debate on Border vs Waugh though- to me they are hard to differentiate, i'd like to know why people adamantly pick one over the other.

I'm a little out of my league here, CC. Admittedly, my team was biased towards the modern era players who i was more familiar with. Based on the little i know about Miller, he was a fearsome bowler at his peak who held his own partnering Lindwall with the new ball. Ultimately, his impressive bowling record is more compelling than his batting record, and i had that mind when i picked him at #8. I'll take your word on Davidson though. That said, I know he was regarded as a great batsman, but i'm not dropping any of my middle order for him because the likes of Chappell, Waugh, Border were legends in their own right. Especially Border, who i would never drop for anyone - he carried the Aussie batting lineup throughout the 80's and scored big runs in what was a fairly mediocre team (moreso when compared to the 90's and '00's Aussie sides). Chappell was the best Aussie batsman after Bradman and Waugh is in there not just for his batting, which was great (even though on pure batting ability alone, i prefer Mark) but more for his captaincy and his guts. Australia played their best test cricket under him. There is too much subjectivity involved here, considering how many great players they have produced. Either way, you would end up with a really good XI

[CC1981]

Yeah, strategically though, i consider it essential to have atleast 5 frontline bowlers for an alltime XI. 4 is just 1 too little, as sometimes batsmen do get stuck in and thats where the presence of a 5th bowler proves very handy. Not to metion, a batting order of behemoths all through are EXPECTED to give bowlers more than a run for their money. Miller has batted at #5 for an extremely competetive Aussie team, when they were certainly no short of great bats. He's held his own with the bat against the best of the best of his era too. Sure, he is a bit of a downgrade in the lineup, but IMO, there can be no formula to all sides, each side is unique. Picking miller in the middle is vastly adding to the bowling teeth while downgrading the batting somewhat from a 50+ averaging guy...but I am very much counting on the Bradman factor here- the guy makes up for Miller's lessr batting- more than so, I might add. You make a good case for Border and Waugh..but my question is, if i am going to pick between either, who do you think should get the nod ?

[Predator_05]

You make a good case for Border and Waugh..but my question is' date=' if i am going to pick between either, who do you think should get the nod ?[/quote'] hmmm. I suppose if you are picking one or the other based on batting ability alone, then i'd definitely go for Border - hands down. Border had a respectable record against WI and scored runs against their best bowlers, which is a big plus. Australia had no decent openers back then, so he would usually walk in at 1 or 2 down for next to nothing and as a result, he always had his back against the wall. In spite of all that, he aggregated 11,000+ runs in his career, and that was a world record which stood for more than a decade until Lara broke it in '05. Besides, Waugh's mediocre 2nd innings record denigrates him in comparision to Border. This is a pretty straightforward choice for me.