***Official*** South Africa In Australia

[Salamuddin]

You've just described virtually every pitch in India and SL

Still sore over the 2-0 defeat I see.......

 

[Athlai]

I think he's disagreeing with you saying that it would come into the selection process, and he's right IMO. McDonald isn't a Stuey MacGill in the field, he's good enough and Symonds' exceptional skill in the field shouldn't keep him in the team if his other skills are no longer up to task.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that; what I disagree with is that I'd pick him based on that. I'd never pick someone for a Test team based on fielding in any capacity unless doing otherwise meant I had no-one to field in slips or the alternative dropped absolutely everything that came his way. One day cricket is obviously different but someone's ability field at cover or point doesn't come into my Test-selecting considerations.

Think you should always consider that in the package. Symonds has the ability to make a wicket happen when there is none (through run outs or near impossible catches) and the pressure that tight fielding can put on the batsman.

While what he offers with the bat and even the ball should be given the most weight what he brings to the team in the field has to be given a bit of thought.

 

[Ernest]

Australia is about to get spanked in England..

Shame the odds aren't better.. I think England were even favourites until they snuck a victory against a rank tail-ender and a bloke with a broken hand..

Can't wait for that. Then it's bye bye Ponting.

 

[Matt79]

Australia is about to get spanked in England..

Shame the odds aren't better.. I think England were even favourites until they snuck a victory against a rank tail-ender and a bloke with a broken hand..

Can't wait for that. Then it's bye bye Ponting.

Amazing how for someone who claims to have an abiding love of the game and an interest in its history, and who claims to enjoy civil conversation of the same, can't bring themselves to make any contribution to such a fantastic forum for the discussion of cricket besides deliberately taunting posts on the one topic, over and over again.

It's almost like you enjoy trying to irritate people...

 

[Ernest]

Amazing how for someone who claims to have an abiding love of the game and an interest in its history, and who claims to enjoy civil conversation of the same, can't bring themselves to make any contribution to such a fantastic forum for the discussion of cricket besides deliberately taunting posts on the one topic, over and over again.

It's almost like you enjoy trying to irritate people...

Sorry, I've just been waiting for years to gloat over the demise of this team. I'll try and keep it civil.. and yes I love the game & it's history and that's why this current team was such an anathema to me.

I got goose-bumps watching Smith come out to bat with a broken hand.. a little like Colin Cowdry coming out against Wes Hall in the 1963 series.. although he didn't end up facing a ball..

Even heard about Tennyson in the 20's coming out against McDonald & Gregory who were probably the finest opening pair of fast bowlers we've ever had.. his top hand was broken so he batted on with just the bottom hand.

Shame he couldn't get forward to cover that ball.. the saffies deserves that draw so much.. I think he was worried about Mitchell shortening him up and copping one on that hand again.. wouldn't surprise me. Great double bluff from Johnson again.. he's bowling that left handed off cutter quite superbly.

Gutsy 50 from DeVilliers as well.

Like Peter Siddle I think he has a great future. I just wish he'd bowl from closer to the stumps..

 

[Matt79]

I'd put Miller and Lindwall definitely, and probably McGrath and Gillespie and Lillee and Thompson above McDonald and Gregory, in terms of pairings of genuine quicks, but they were meant to be pretty awesome - although McDonald's record is surprisingly average when you look at it given the wraps he gets from those who saw him bowl.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, and as my temporary change of avatar suggests, I was pretty impressed by Smith's effort!

 

[Ernest]

I'd put Miller and Lindwall definitely, and probably McGrath and Gillespie and Lillee and Thompson above McDonald and Gregory, in terms of pairings of genuine quicks, but they were meant to be pretty awesome - although McDonald's record is surprisingly average when you look at it given the wraps he gets from those who saw him bowl.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, and as my temporary change of avatar suggests, I was pretty impressed by Smith's effort!

If the Don was a good judge then based on his experiences of facing McDonald when he was an older bloke in the 30's (he got bowled for 9) then he rated Ted as the best fast bowler he faced.

I've no doubt that Miller & Lindwall are up there but I just don't think either of them were as quick as McDonald or Gregory. Lillee & Thompson didn't do so well in England where the pitches weren't as hard.. Thommo too erratic and Lillee.. well he wasn't really the same after he broke his back.

And averages don't mean much because back then the benefit always went with the batsman and the lbw law was kinder on the batsman (and the stumps were smaller!)..

Added to that before the war and for a few years after it pitches were dressed with a top coating called "marl" .. this turned everything into the Hume Highway.

But back on Smith.. his bottom handed grip struck me the first time I saw him bat.. against the poms incidentally when he hit two double centuries. Must say it's turned right around like Bradmans.. not saying that he's as good but there really is a strong resemblance.. doesn't help him hit through extra cover but he can keep the ball down on the leg side and can late cut well.. very hard to bowl too i'd reckon.

 

[The Sean]

I've no doubt that Miller & Lindwall are up there but I just don't think either of them were as quick as McDonald or Gregory. Lillee & Thompson didn't do so well in England where the pitches weren't as hard.. Thommo too erratic and Lillee.. well he wasn't really the same after he broke his back.

I'd certainly say that Lindwall at his peak was quicker than either of them - though both men have proven to be rather difficult to judge speed-wise according to their contemporaries, there seems to be considerable inconsistency among those who faced them as to who they thought was faster. Gregory's powerful action and high leap, according to some, gave the impression that he was quicker than he actually was, while Ted was so smooth and graceful that he may well have been faster than he seemed. I believe it was Jack Hobbs though who claimed that neither man was as fast as Tibby Cotter had been before the war.

As for Lillee not being the same after he broke his back - his performances certainly didn't diminish, if anything he got better as he got older. That he wasn't as successful on English soil is a strange claim - even after he came back from his injury in 74/75 he played another 11 Tests in England and took 65 wickets, a fantastic return.

The most pressing question of all, however, is this: Ernest, why can't you post like this all the time??

 

[Ernest]

I'd certainly say that Lindwall at his peak was quicker than either of them - though both men have proven to be rather difficult to judge speed-wise according to their contemporaries, there seems to be considerable inconsistency among those who faced them as to who they thought was faster. Gregory's powerful action and high leap, according to some, gave the impression that he was quicker than he actually was, while Ted was so smooth and graceful that he may well have been faster than he seemed. I believe it was Jack Hobbs though who claimed that neither man was as fast as Tibby Cotter had been before the war.

As for Lillee not being the same after he broke his back - his performances certainly didn't diminish, if anything he got better as he got older. That he wasn't as successful on English soil is a strange claim - even after he came back from his injury in 74/75 he played another 11 Tests in England and took 65 wickets, a fantastic return.

The most pressing question of all, however, is this: Ernest, why can't you post like this all the time??

Look my sincerest apologies.. I am a very avid Australian cricket fan and the current team got my goat so severely over the last 5-6 years that I even started going for England. I am just so ashamed of what we've become as a sporting nation and I was just hankering for- even praying for a defeat like this one.

No back on the topic.. remember that Lillee & Thommo played under the front foot bowling rule.. that means if you look at the leap & drag of a Lindwall then he was probably a yard closer and therefore a yard faster.

From footage I've seen of Lindwall & McDonald I'd say McDonald was considerably quicker.. not say up to the Eddie Gilbert or Frank Tyson level but really sharp. I'd say Lindwall peaked about 140kmh.. it wasn't his pace but his control of swing.. more of a Tim Wall type bowler than say a run in and bang it in like an Ernie McCormick.

Steyne is very, very sharp.. I'd put him up there with Donald in pace but he just doesn't have the same aggression.. I'd dare say the bloke doesn't need it.

 

[Matt79]

If the Don was a good judge then based on his experiences of facing McDonald when he was an older bloke in the 30's (he got bowled for 9) then he rated Ted as the best fast bowler he faced.

I've no doubt that Miller & Lindwall are up there but I just don't think either of them were as quick as McDonald or Gregory. Lillee & Thompson didn't do so well in England where the pitches weren't as hard.. Thommo too erratic and Lillee.. well he wasn't really the same after he broke his back.

And averages don't mean much because back then the benefit always went with the batsman and the lbw law was kinder on the batsman (and the stumps were smaller!)..

Added to that before the war and for a few years after it pitches were dressed with a top coating called "marl" .. this turned everything into the Hume Highway.

But back on Smith.. his bottom handed grip struck me the first time I saw him bat.. against the poms incidentally when he hit two double centuries. Must say it's turned right around like Bradmans.. not saying that he's as good but there really is a strong resemblance.. doesn't help him hit through extra cover but he can keep the ball down on the leg side and can late cut well.. very hard to bowl too i'd reckon.

It's interesting - I'm open to the possibility that Gregory and maybe Mac were as fast as Lindwall, but based on all the stuff I've read about Ray, I find it difficult to accept that either of them was significantly faster.

The other thing is that sheer pace is not the sole criterion to determine quality or greatness which I know is not what you're saying either. The three pairings I mentioned were a top notch pairings over a long period of time, compared to the relatively short period McDonald and Gregory were on top. It's sad that a knee injury that these days would mean missing a season effectively ended Gregory's career. And even if either Ted or Jack were faster than Lindwall, Miller or Lillee, I'd still rather face them as a batsman than the two earlier bowlers.

The Don seems to have rated so many different people as "the best this or that" in so many different places. He would have been a young'un when he faced McDonald, and thus his opinion of him might have been influenced by his relative lack of experience when facing him. Either way, that opinion by Bradman wasn't reflected in the teams Roland Perry says Don selected as his best - he preferred Lindwall, Lillee, and Bedser to McDonald, and Ted didn't even get a guernsey in his Australian team picked on Ashes performances.

 

[Ernest]

It's interesting - I'm open to the possibility that Gregory and maybe Mac were as fast as Lindwall, but based on all the stuff I've read about Ray, I find it difficult to accept that either of them was significantly faster.

The other thing is that sheer pace is not the sole criterion to determine quality or greatness which I know is not what you're saying either. The three pairings I mentioned were a top notch pairings over a long period of time, compared to the relatively short period McDonald and Gregory were on top. It's sad that a knee injury that these days would mean missing a season effectively ended Gregory's career. And even if either Ted or Jack were faster than Lindwall, Miller or Lillee, I'd still rather face them as a batsman than the two earlier bowlers.

The Don seems to have rated so many different people as "the best this or that" in so many different places. He would have been a young'un when he faced McDonald, and thus his opinion of him might have been influenced by his relative lack of experience when facing him. Either way, that opinion by Bradman wasn't reflected in the teams Roland Perry says Don selected as his best - he preferred Lindwall, Lillee, and Bedser to McDonald, and Ted didn't even get a guernsey in his Australian team picked on Ashes performances.

OK I get your point forgive my bias.. I'm a bit of a golden age fan I'd much rather watch (if I only could) Charlie Macartney play the "dog" shot off Maurice Tate than a Hussey cover drive any day.

Did anyone here know that Dennis Lillee showed Glenn McGrath footage of Ted McDonald in the 20/21 series and said that he should model his action on it? The similarites are quite uncanny.. apart from an extra "slinging" motion in Ted's action which would probably be frowned upon these days.. you know the half side on half front on blah blah..

But it is quite possibly (Larwood may be an exception) the best looking action ever.

 

[The Sean]

Look my sincerest apologies.. I am a very avid Australian cricket fan and the current team got my goat so severely over the last 5-6 years that I even started going for England. I am just so ashamed of what we've become as a sporting nation and I was just hankering for- even praying for a defeat like this one.

No back on the topic.. remember that Lillee & Thommo played under the front foot bowling rule.. that means if you look at the leap & drag of a Lindwall then he was probably a yard closer and therefore a yard faster.

From footage I've seen of Lindwall & McDonald I'd say McDonald was considerably quicker.. not say up to the Eddie Gilbert or Frank Tyson level but really sharp. I'd say Lindwall peaked about 140kmh.. it wasn't his pace but his control of swing.. more of a Tim Wall type bowler than say a run in and bang it in like an Ernie McCormick.

Steyne is very, very sharp.. I'd put him up there with Donald in pace but he just doesn't have the same aggression.. I'd dare say the bloke doesn't need it.

Fair enough mate, well I'm glad to see this side of you now because I think on this form you'll bring a lot to the forum.

I always find the comparison of bowlers' speeds interesting because it's such an inexact science when you factor in not only the changing of rules and conditions but also the fact that the quality of footage has improved over time. If you think that Ted was quicker than Lindwall then fair enough, I can't prove you wrong. I personally think that McDonald WAS quicker than Gregory, but I'd put Lindwall, certainly in those first few years after WWII, just that bit faster again.

Agree with you on Steyn, I really enjoy watching him bowl - I've got no problem with the notion that by the time his career has run its course we could be speaking of him comfortably in the same breath as Donald.

 

[Uppercut]

This Test was exactly the same as the previous two. The difference was, SA managed to get out of it the last two times, which you can't expect to happen every time. I don't think the level of play was necessarily different from either side.

I think SA's "miracle win" in the first test is a bit overstated. They cantered to a score of 400 against a fairly weak bowling attack on a pitch that hadn't broken up in the slightest, and was probably at an easier pace to bat on than it had been on day one. Why does everyone get wet over quality batting on a pretty flat pitch just because it comes in the fourth innings?

 

[The Sean]

OK I get your point forgive my bias.. I'm a bit of a golden age fan I'd much rather watch (if I only could) Charlie Macartney play the "dog" shot off Maurice Tate than a Hussey cover drive any day.

Did anyone here know that Dennis Lillee showed Glenn McGrath footage of Ted McDonald in the 20/21 series and said that he should model his action on it? The similarites are quite uncanny.. apart from an extra "slinging" motion in Ted's action which would probably be frowned upon these days.. you know the half side on half front on blah blah..

But it is quite possibly (Larwood may be an exception) the best looking action ever.

McDonald's is certainly one of those actions that you can unabashedly call "beautiful" - and to bring Lindwall into the discussion again I'd have both he and Larwood on a par, unsurprisingly given that one modelled his action on the other!

 

[The Sean]

The Don seems to have rated so many different people as "the best this or that" in so many different places. He would have been a young'un when he faced McDonald, and thus his opinion of him might have been influenced by his relative lack of experience when facing him. Either way, that opinion by Bradman wasn't reflected in the teams Roland Perry says Don selected as his best - he preferred Lindwall, Lillee, and Bedser to McDonald, and Ted didn't even get a guernsey in his Australian team picked on Ashes performances.

That's always been my issue with the Don - I'd never deny that he was an extremely astute and perceptive judge of a cricketer, but he did seem to bandy the "best" and "greatest" titles around with a little more reckless abandon than I'd like.

He's still God though, obviously.

 

[Matt79]

Was it you who quoted Gideon Haigh's cracking square cut of Perry's biography of Don? "A book shaped object". I think you have to caveat that 'Bradman' team as the team that he settled on in correspondence with Perry.

 

[Ernest]

McDonald's is certainly one of those actions that you can unabashedly call "beautiful" - and to bring Lindwall into the discussion again I'd have both he and Larwood on a par, unsurprisingly given that one modelled his action on the other!

And even to further the irony.. Larwood copied his action from Jack Gregory.. so it's a chicken and an egg argument really.. Larwoods action is purer to my eye.. much more upright than Ray who really did bowl with a very round arm.. must have really helped his outswinger..

Donald has publically said that he expects Steyne to be a far better bowler than him.. can't remember Donald getting as much swing but boy could he chuck em down!! It's exciting to see the younger fast men now all we need is Jerome Taylor to add another 5kmh to his speed gun rating and I would be very happy..

 

[The Sean]

Was it you who quoted Gideon Haigh's cracking square cut of Perry's biography of Don? "A book shaped object". I think you have to caveat that 'Bradman' team as the team that he settled on in correspondence with Perry.

Ha ha no that wasn't me, but I love the quote.

 

[Ernest]

That's always been my issue with the Don - I'd never deny that he was an extremely astute and perceptive judge of a cricketer, but he did seem to bandy the "best" and "greatest" titles around with a little more reckless abandon than I'd like.

He's still God though, obviously.

I never thought he was God.. from people I've spoken to the bloke was a priggish tight a-hole.. and a dodgy customer in the stock-broking scene..

But hey if you judge a man on his ability to back-foot on drive a fast bowler for 4 nearly every time in the same spot.. then yes he was God.

 

[The Sean]

But hey if you judge a man on his ability to back-foot on drive a fast bowler for 4 nearly every time in the same spot.. then yes he was God.

Always been my primary criteria for deification TBH.

It certainly does seem that he divided opinion as a person, though there are plenty who speak of him with warm regard and affection to counter those critical of him. He was the kind of man, from what I can gather, who by his nature wasn’t one to leave people sitting on the fence. And nor did that bother him in the slightest.