• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Why can't anyone decide on two openers in an all-time Australian XI?

LongHopCassidy

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
AndyZaltzHair said:
Must say this is one of the best combination of England XI, covers every ground; tempting to put Woolley out there but I think with Hammond as fifth option, all bases are covered
Click to expand...
Top lineup, but IMO Barnes is just too much of an unknown entity. Would sub him out for Bedser or Laker.
 
watson

watson

Banned
LongHopCassidy said:
Top lineup, but IMO Barnes is just too much of an unknown entity. Would sub him out for Bedser or Laker.
Click to expand...
'Unknown entity' lol You sound like me.

Laker perhaps, but Bedser didn't spin the ball. Unless, you're not interested in playing a spin bowler LHC.
 
LongHopCassidy

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
watson said:
'Unknown entity' lol You sound like me.

Laker perhaps, but Bedser didn't spin the ball. Unless, you're not interested in playing a spin bowler LHC.
Click to expand...
Torn between Laker and Underwood in terms of spinners, but frankly I think Bedser is better than both of them - and given he was a medium pacer it wouldn't really make a difference in the over rate.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Monk said:
Fair enough Kyear. Good team. I'd still take Trumper over Lawry, purely on the basis of wanting to score quickly to win. And I'd take Harvey over Border (just).

On a pedantic note (as I rate fielding very highly), Miller was a brilliant slipper, while Warne was just adequate I reckon. Border a good slip as well. I'd say the starting slip cordon for this team would be:
1st- Simpson
2nd- G.Chappell
3rd- Miller

Border was good at midwicket and Bradman good in covers. I have no indication of what type of fielder Trumper was. I think Lawry was good in close, bat-pad etc.

On Simpson's bowling, if you have Warne and O'Reilly in the team, you wouldn't need Simmo to bowl, especially with 5 frontline options.

I really feel the pain leaving Lindwall out of these line-ups, but with McGrath and Lillee definite for me, the selection of Miller as a high quality third quick who can also bat at 5 or 6 allows both Warne and O'Reilly to play together, which I love the idea of. In pace conditions (old WACA), I'd leave out either of O'Reilly or Warne and bring Lindwall in no dramas.



You know more about WIs than me, do you reckon Headley could open? Seems more balanced to me if he does.

Those two teams (Aus and WIs) would be the strongest I think. England would probably have:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Barrington/Compton/May
Hammond
Botham/Woolley
Knott
Larwood
Trueman
Underwood/Laker/Rhodes
Barnes
Click to expand...
Don't know where the notion that Warne was an ok slipper came from, he is an ATG slip fielder and was part of the best cordon ever. Miller was very good but dropped to many balls. Harvey was better than Miller but was so good in the covers, that he was best utilised there. Warnie for me.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Monk said:
Fair enough Kyear. Good team. I'd still take Trumper over Lawry, purely on the basis of wanting to score quickly to win. And I'd take Harvey over Border (just).

On a pedantic note (as I rate fielding very highly), Miller was a brilliant slipper, while Warne was just adequate I reckon. Border a good slip as well. I'd say the starting slip cordon for this team would be:
1st- Simpson
2nd- G.Chappell
3rd- Miller

Border was good at midwicket and Bradman good in covers. I have no indication of what type of fielder Trumper was. I think Lawry was good in close, bat-pad etc.

On Simpson's bowling, if you have Warne and O'Reilly in the team, you wouldn't need Simmo to bowl, especially with 5 frontline options.

I really feel the pain leaving Lindwall out of these line-ups, but with McGrath and Lillee definite for me, the selection of Miller as a high quality third quick who can also bat at 5 or 6 allows both Warne and O'Reilly to play together, which I love the idea of. In pace conditions (old WACA), I'd leave out either of O'Reilly or Warne and bring Lindwall in no dramas.



You know more about WIs than me, do you reckon Headley could open? Seems more balanced to me if he does.

Those two teams (Aus and WIs) would be the strongest I think. England would probably have:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Barrington/Compton/May
Hammond
Botham/Woolley
Knott
Larwood
Trueman
Underwood/Laker/Rhodes
Barnes
Click to expand...
Headley was the best ever number 3 behind Bradman (Richards and Hammond come next), and would want to bat at his best position. Also like batting Hutton at 3 seems like cheeting. Even though he never officially opened, he did often come in, in the first over anyway, so he would be capable while Weekes would strengthen the middle order and slip.cordon and allow Richards to slide over to the covers. Hunte though is also capable and very under rated and some one has to field at short leg.
 
watson

watson

Banned
Jager said:
watson :wub:

Also I think your point on Barnes is what makes him a secret weapon in drafts - if you pick him up, you can make him a seamer or a spinner depending on your other bowling picks.

Godly attack there, for sure. I've warmed to Snow now that you've mentioned him a few times, as a matter of fact.

I'd do the batting order differently though - I'd exclude Barrington for Hutton

1. Hobbs
2. Sutcliffe
3. Hutton
4. Hammond
5. May
6. Compton

Doesn't quite look right, but it's the best way to get all of the best English batsmen into the side. The problem is that there's 3 openers and 3 batsmen who should be playing in the top 4 obviously, but it's the best I can do
Click to expand...
Hutton himself indicated that he wouldn't mind batting in the No.5 position. So if we give the man want he wants we get a slightly better balanced line-up (I think);

01. Hobbs
02. Sutcliffe
03. Hammond
04. May
05. Hutton
06. Compton

I think that playing Compton and May rather than Barrington is a good move. Hutton could easily do Barrington's job as the superlative defensive batsman in the middle-order.
 
watson

watson

Banned
LongHopCassidy said:
Torn between Laker and Underwood in terms of spinners, but frankly I think Bedser is better than both of them - and given he was a medium pacer it wouldn't really make a difference in the over rate.
Click to expand...
Underwood's record against the Windies is very ordinary. Laker by a small margin as the better spinner. Although the choice of Underwood does give the team a left-armer.

Still think that SF Barnes is superior to Laker, Underwood, and Bedser as a Strike Bowler though.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Hayden was excellent in slip and even better in the gully, but lets be honest even Mark Waugh dropped his fair share. Brilliant though.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
He definitely wasn't a great slip fielder. And he was pretty ordinary anywhere else in the field.

Good bowler though. And he's having *** with



So good on him.
 
Jager

Jager

International Debutant
kyear2 said:
Don't know where the notion that Warne was an ok slipper came from, he is an ATG slip fielder and was part of the best cordon ever. Miller was very good but dropped to many balls. Harvey was better than Miller but was so good in the covers, that he was best utilised there. Warnie for me.
Click to expand...
Don't know where you got that idea. Miller was a genius in the slips

watson said:
Underwood's record against the Windies is very ordinary. Laker by a small margin as the better spinner. Although the choice of Underwood does give the team a left-armer.

Still think that SF Barnes is superior to Laker, Underwood, and Bedser as a Strike Bowler though.
Click to expand...
Verity > Laker > Underwood to me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top