Other Cricket
-
I'm not old enough to have seen Chappell, but I did see a lot of Ponting. The reason I'd potentially have Smith ahead of him is the importance of Smith's runs compared to Punter.
Ponting's prime largely co-incided with Australia's prime - 2002-2006. He played some fantastic innings but my memory can't really pull up many 'match winning' innings, as he was just surrounded by class in that side.
Smith has featured in a pretty successful team but hasn't had the luxury of coming in after Langer/Hayden. And as such I can list off the top of my head at least 3-4 genuine match winning innings - a couple in the 19 Ashes, Pune in India, etc etc.
So I think his runs have carried a bit more weight than perhaps what Punter's did. But we're really splitting hairs.
-
@barbarian similar to how Gilchrist's record was great, but always clouded by the fact he was usually coming in after the top order pounded shit out of everyone.
Years ago I saw a stat that counted Gilchrist centuries in an innings where someone else had a century above him - and it was more often than not I believe.
-
Is that recency bias though?
You would think that South Africa were the 2nd best team in Punters era, and he scored two hundred in a test to beat them in Sydney, two hundreds in a test to beat them in Durban. Hundreds against good teams in India.
It is an interesting way to look at it though. Eye test says Punter was the "better" batsman, but greatness isn't measured in numbers, and as you say, one way to look at it is, who else is in the order, and who were they batting against? We're in a pretty good era of test cricket parity at the moment, with most nations having a useful attack. Ponting probably didn't have that depth of opposition.
-
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@barbarian similar to how Gilchrist's record was great, but always clouded by the fact he was usually coming in after the top order pounded shit out of everyone.
Years ago I saw a stat that counted Gilchrist centuries in an innings where someone else had a century above him - and it was more often than not I believe.
Gilly gets labelled with this a little unfairly. I think i did the math on it once and he came in at 5 for less than 200 before going on to get a hundred around half of his centuries. I think that stat gets blown out by the guy above him having time to get a hundred because the #7 averaged 50. (i do seem to remember a hundred opening the batting once as well which probably affects this math)
It's like people are trying to pick holes in that team because Australia had the good fortune to put together a test XI of all time players at the same time.
-
-
my job is very boring
-
Gilly was a game changer.
I always liked Alec Stewart as a keeper batsman but Gilly blew the role out of the water.
Hayden would be one of my openers but then I saw a good article saying that Taylor/Slater ( fine players in their own right ) faced better attacks ? Will try and dig it out.
Justin Langer was an excellent player but if I remember rightly he retired at the same time as Warne and McGrath and pretty much got forgotten about ? Speaks volumes about how amazing that team was
In my mythical all time Aussie team Smith, Ponting and Chappell fight for two spots. Whichever way you look at it a legend will miss out.
-
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Whichever way you look at it a legend will miss out
that's their entire order though. They've had that many fucking good players, and that's just the ones i can remember over the past 40-odd years, let alone the guys from the 70s and 80s.
Ridiculous cricketing nation. The Aus all time 3rd XI is probably as good as most nations Firsts.
-
@mariner4life said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Whichever way you look at it a legend will miss out
that's their entire order though. They've had that many fucking good players, and that's just the ones i can remember over the past 40-odd years, let alone the guys from the 70s and 80s.
Ridiculous cricketing nation. The Aus all time 3rd XI is probably as good as most nations Firsts.
Definitely. Guys like Clarke, Hussey, Martyn, M Waugh etc are absolutely no chance of an all time XI. Possibly not even 2nd…….
I don’t reckon they have quite the same depth in the bowling department.
……and Keith Miller was their only great all rounder. They are a nation of specialists on the whole.
-
when you have four bowlers the quality that they normally put out, and a keeper at 7 that averages 50, an all-rounder is a waste of a batting spot.
-
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
I don’t reckon they have quite the same depth in the bowling departmen
oof
maybe not from the early 90s
but beyond that? The four they have now are unlikely to make the 2nd XI and they are brilliant.
Even spin, i mean Warnie walks in. Nathan Lyon has 539 wickets.
Stuart MacGill has 200+ wickets at less than 30 as the forgotten leg spinner who only played when Warnie got himself suspended. And that's before black and white dudes like Richie Benaud.i think if you start listing them out the list will start stretching fast than you think.
-
@mariner4life said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
I don’t reckon they have quite the same depth in the bowling departmen
oof
maybe not from the early 90s
but beyond that? The four they have now are unlikely to make the 2nd XI and they are brilliant.
I think by the time he retires Cummins will have a pretty decent first XI case. In fact I think he's got a case now. The captaincy thing is pretty huge for a bowler, and he's won all the trophies there is to win.
Which other quicks have a case? McGrath and Lillee, sure but then... McDermott? Lindwall? Thommo? Lee? Starc? I'm picking Cummins over each of them I think. 294 wickets at 22, in an era where batsmen have broadly dominated over bowlers.
-
when he's gone i think you are right. These all time lists are always filled with nostalgia
sort of opposite to the batting above, being part of a foursome who take shitloads of wickets off each other might just take the shine off (i say might)
Like, you can see the discussion being "was he THAT much better than Hazlewood who has 280 at 24" or "Starcy knocked over the top order and took 80 more wickets"McGrath walks in with sheer bulk wickets as well as the ridiculous average.
-
You can't be wrong on those coin toss selections. You've always got the fallback of arguing about balance. Fearsome speed and the other end consistently putting it in a near unplayable line and length. etc.
Cummins and McGrath I think are unbackable in the modern era.
Re Punter and Smith, I'd be swayed by Smith having a cumulative average over 60 during the period 2016-2022. That's astonishing, even if every other country suddenly forgot how to bowl and wickets were practice nets for batsmen.
-
-
@barbarian but would i have a beer with him? gee probably not. big quality i look for in my cricketers
-
@mariner4life said in Other Cricket:
@barbarian but would i have a beer with him? gee probably not. big quality i look for in my cricketers
Bradman didn’t like a beer but I’m sure you’d pick him
