Watson's All-Time-Great Ashes Contest

[ankitj]

Wicketkeepers are not allrounders. We need to dump this idea fast.

This.

 

[kyear2]

This.

If you have a keeper like Gichrist that can bat at 6 without the team loosing quality in their top 6 which allows you to play an extra bowler, for me he is an all rounder. He can play as a specialist batsman and he keeps wicket.

 

[watson]

Australia's No.9: Ray Lindwall

Ray Lindwall is like Harold Larwood, Fred Trueman, Malcolm Marshall, Waqar Younis, and Glenn McGrath all rolled into one. He had an action identical to Larwood's, an outstanding outswinger like Trueman's, a bouncer that skidded through at throat height like Marshall's, a Yorker that dipped late like Waqar's, and pin-point accuracy like Glenn McGrath. This accuracy is reflected in the 794 wickets of his First Class career – 60% were either bowled or LBW.

The former Australian off-spinner though that Lindwall’s repertoire was so good that he rated him ahead of Dennis Lillee, Wasim Akram, Alan Davidson, and Malcolm Marshall;

Quick picks: Five all-time great fast bowlers who had pace as well as every trick in the book

Ray Lindwall heads my list of the five best fast bowlers I have seen.

This artist-cricketer changed his pace with all the subtle artifices any fast bowler of any era has achieved, and he did what all great bowlers must do: broke the rhythm of the batsman. At his peak he had the power to slay by thunder or defeat by guile.

Stocky and strong, Lindwall was like a well-toned welterweight, ready to punch and counter-punch. He bowled outswingers at genuine speed, and had what Pelham Warner called "shades of pace". To the purists, Lindwall's bowling arm was too low, but that helped his skidding bouncer. Instead of climbing harmlessly over the batsman's head, it came at the throat, earning him the nickname "Killer".

Ashley Mallett on the five best fast bowlers he has seen | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Lindwall began his career in 1946, and he retired in 1960. Unlike some Test bowlers his Top 10 victims during that time reads like a Who’s Who of cricket;

Dennis Compton (10)
Godfrey Evans (10)
Len Hutton (9)
Bill Edrich (8)
Vinoo Mankad (8)
Cyril Washbrook (7)
Alec Bedser (7)
Trevor Bailey (7)
Clyde Walcott (5)
Peter May (5)

Yet despite frequently playing against quality opposition he was able to maintain exceptional figures. After 20 Tests his bowling average was 18.98, and at the end of 40 Tests it was 20.7. Only after his very last Test match did his average creep over the 22 mark to finish at 23.03. His Strike Rate was consistently in the mid-50s for most of his career, and never touched 60 balls per wicket except for his initial test matches in 1946. Against England he was successful home and away, and finished with 114 wickets at 22.44. His best bowling performance came at The Oval in 1948 when he he took 6 for 20 to help dismiss England for 52 in their first innings. Arthur Morris responded with an innings of 196 runs as a prelude to England being routed again on Day 4.

Ray Lindwall was also a creditable lower order batsman. Against England he scored a century and four 50s, and averaged 22.08. As well as being an ATG bowler his batting skills will add some useful depth to the Australian line-up.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Yep this guy is one of my two favourite Aussie bowlers ever. The other is DK Lillee. But from what I've heard they bowl very similarly and so I tend to chose the latter, but Lindwall just sounds amazing. Plus his lower order batting is very handy, absolutely love this pick.

 

[kyear2]

Australia's No.9: Ray Lindwall

Ray Lindwall is like Harold Larwood, Fred Trueman, Malcolm Marshall, Waqar Younis, and Glenn McGrath all rolled into one. He had an action identical to Larwood's, an outstanding outswinger like Trueman's, a bouncer that skidded through at throat height like Marshall's, a Yorker that dipped late like Waqar's, and pin-point accuracy like Glenn McGrath. This accuracy is reflected in the 794 wickets of his First Class career – 60% were either bowled or LBW.

The former Australian off-spinner though that Lindwall’s repertoire was so good that he rated him ahead of Dennis Lillee, Wasim Akram, Alan Davidson, and Malcolm Marshall;



Lindwall began his career in 1946, and he retired in 1960. Unlike some Test bowlers his Top 10 victims during that time reads like a Who’s Who of cricket;

Dennis Compton (10)
Godfrey Evans (10)
Len Hutton (9)
Bill Edrich (8)
Vinoo Mankad (8)
Cyril Washbrook (7)
Alec Bedser (7)
Trevor Bailey (7)
Clyde Walcott (5)
Peter May (5)

Yet despite frequently playing against quality opposition he was able to maintain exceptional figures. After 20 Tests his bowling average was 18.98, and at the end of 40 Tests it was 20.7. Only after his very last Test match did his average creep over the 22 mark to finish at 23.03. His Strike Rate was consistently in the mid-50s for most of his career, and never touched 60 balls per wicket except for his initial test matches in 1946. Against England he was successful home and away, and finished with 114 wickets at 22.44. His best bowling performance came at The Oval in 1948 when he he took 6 for 20 to help dismiss England for 52 in their first innings. Arthur Morris responded with an innings of 196 runs as a prelude to England being routed again on Day 4.

Ray Lindwall was also a creditable lower order batsman. Against England he scored a century and four 50s, and averaged 22.08. As well as being an ATG bowler his batting skills will add some useful depth to the Australian line-up.

Just love your write ups and the research you have obviously put in preparing them. Brilliantly written as well.

Regarding the article by Mallett, don't think he rated him ahead of the other bowlers though as at the end of the article if I recall correctly he finishes with the statement that Marshall may well have been the greatest bowler of them all. Will have to verify.

Specifically though I can't rate Lindwall that highly with a strike rate just below 60 and his WPM under 4. He was without doubt though a great fast bowler and along with Miller one of the great tandems in the sport and they tormented our batsmen more than any other pacers excepting Larwood and Lillee and Thomson. His lower order batting too is also a plus to any team.

 

[marc71178]

If you have a keeper like Gichrist that can bat at 6 without the team loosing quality in their top 6 which allows you to play an extra bowler, for me he is an all rounder. He can play as a specialist batsman and he keeps wicket.

And yet he never seemed to, even when Australia were desperately searching for a way of getting a 5th bowler into their line-up.

 

[watson]

England's No.3: Ted Dexter

The No.3 position requires specific expertise and its importance should not be under-estimated. Not only is the No.3 expected to consolidate any good start by the opening batsman, but also counter-attack against the new ball, and fresh bowlers, in the event of an early wicket. Yet there have only been four English batsman who have averaged more than 50 runs over 12 Tests or more in the No.3 position. David Gower’s average is close enough to 50;

Ken Barrington
Tests = 27
Runs = 2626
Average = 77.23
100s = 13
50s = 7
HS = 172

Walter Hammond
Tests = 37
Runs = 3340
Average = 74.78
100s = 14
50s = 4
HS = 336

Ted Dexter
Tests = 38
Runs = 2798
Average = 51.81
100s = 6
50s = 16
HS = 205

Bill Edrich
Tests = 25
Runs = 2049
Average = 51.22
100s = 6
50s = 10
HS = 219

David Gower
Tests = 35
Runs = 2619
Average = 49.42
100s = 8
50s = 10
HS = 215

(Note: Peter May averaged 42.02 at No.3)


Fortunately for England during the 1960s Ted Dexter was one of the above batsman who relished the challenge of batting at first drop.

In 2010 Geoff Boycott selected two Ashes teams made up of the greatest players of his time. He chose Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson to open the bowling for Australia, and in response chose Dexter in the top order;

At No 3, you’ve got to have Ted Dexter. He was a fantastic player who stood up well to the quicks. Ted could easily get bored against medium-pace trundlers but he was stimulated by a real challenge — and Lillee and Thomson were always that.

The Ashes 2010: Geoffrey Boycott picks his all-time England and Australia teams - Telegraph

The ‘Wisden Overview’ of Dexter begins;

There was no more exhilarating sight in English cricket than Ted Dexter when he was savaging fast bowling. Though he had the patience and technique to develop a long innings or fight a rearguard action according to the position of a match - six of his nine Test hundreds were bigger than 140 - it was the naked power of his driving on the counter-attack that fired the imagination….

In this England side Barrington will follow immediately after Dexter in the batting order. This is because Dexter and Barrington clearly liked batting together. During their 36 partnerships they averaged 66.61 per innings (6 x 100s and 11 x 50s). When Dexter batted in the No.3 position their average was slightly better at 73.31. To put this into perspective, Dravid and Tendulkar partnerships are worth 50.51 runs each.

Dexter was also a competent medium paced bowler who picked up 66 wickets at 34.93. Against Australia specifically his average was slightly better at 32.26. Importantly, he was able to dismiss top order batsman, and his most common victims were Basil Butcher (5), Bill Lawry (4), Norm O’Neill (4), Neil Harvey (4), and Bob Simpson (3). His preferred fielding position was the covers where he was described as being “lightening fast.”

If there is a criticism of Dexter then it is that he should have done better against Australia. So while he averaged 48.11 against West Indian attacks he averaged only 38.80 against Australian attacks. However, he did average 48 runs in two Ashes series, away in1962/63, then home in 1964.

Lastly, I don’t think that it is possible to split my two favoured choices, Dexter and Gower, in the context of an intuitive attacking No.3 batsman. Gower’s average against Australia is excellent thanks to a superlative Ashes summer of 1985. However, Allan Border’s Australian team was still in the process of recovering from the loss of Greg Chappell, Rod Marsh, and Dennis Lillee, and was not strong. Dexter did better against the West Indies who of course had Wes Hall, but no one would admit that he was in the same class as Malcolm Marshall during the 1980s;

Ted Dexter V AUS at No.3 (1961-68)
Tests = 13
Runs = 1077
Average = 48.95
100s = 2
50s = 6
HS = 180

Ted Dexter V WI at No.3 (1960-63)
Tests = 6
Runs = 361
Average = 40.95
100 = 1
50s = 2
HS = 110

David Gower V AUS at No.3 (1978-91)
Tests = 14
Runs = 1262
Average = 60.09
100s = 4
50s = 5
HS = 215

David Gower V WI at No.3 (1984-86)
Tests = 5
Runs = 283
Average = 28.30
100 = 0
50s = 2
HS = 66

In this win-win situation Dexter just nudges Gower out of the team because of his bowling skills; although I do think that Dexter’s arrogant persona might have more going for it than Gower’s languid style.

 

[watson]

Teams so far;

England XI
01. Jack Hobbs
02.
03. Ted Dexter
04. Ken Barrington
05. Walter Hammond
06.
07. Alan Knott
08. Hedley Verity
09.
10. Alec Bedser
11.

Australia XI
01. Bob Simpson
02.
03. Don Bradman
04. Greg Chappell
05. Allan Border
06.
07. Adam Gilchrist
08.
09. Ray Lindwall
10.
11.

 

[OverratedSanity]

My dad would go on and on endlessly how Dexter's brutal drives would reach the boundary before fielders even had a chance to react. He saw Dexter play brilliantly in the 62 India tour and after that he remained one of his favorite cricketers. Lovely pick.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Those are some incredible 3,4,5's. Barring the number 3 spot, it's pretty close. On any given day either side could win. Think I'll give the edge in 4,5 to England. I find it hard to say that Chappell and Border aren't as good, it is a close call to the POMs. But then put in Bradman and I give it to Aus.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I'm finding it hard to pick the number 6 for the English. I'm gonna guess Greigy.
For the Aussies I'm confident about Waugh, but there are other choices but for number 6 I think only Miller would be the other choice, required as a bowler to allow a second spinner?

Exciting sides so far.

 

[Riggins]

Marto obv

 

[kyear2]

Love the Dexter pick and write. Perfect No. 3 for this team and is what a true No. 3 should be. His bowling doesn't hurt either.

 

[MartinB]

Not sure of the England number 6, could be Botham (or Grieg).

Number 6 for Australia will be interesting. Picking Lindwall at 9 indicates the Australian Number 8 can bat as well (Benaud, Davidson, Miller)

Australia

06. Miller / Waugh / Armstrong
07. Gilchrist
08. Benaud / Davidson / Miller
09. Lindwall
10. Warne ???

A 6 - 11 of say Miller, Gilchrist, Benaud, Lindwall, Warne is a very dangerous middle / lower order and could score 200 runs on there day.

On the other hand Simpson, Chappel, Border where all useful bowlers (between them they averaged 1.5 -> 2 wickets a Test), add Steve Waugh and you have your "Batting allrounder".

I will guess Miller and Benaud for 6 / 8 for Australia. Given that Australia has Bradman + Gilchrist and 8 / 9 (and probably 10) batsment who could bat, I do not see the need for a specialist Batsman at 6.

Having 5 ATG bowlers is a huge advantage. In a genuine 5 man attack, on most days 4 bowlers will do most of the bowling but it will be a different set of 4 bowler's each day depending who is bowling the best on that Day. Having 5 ATG bowlers improves the consistency of the Bowling, there is no bowler you can rest against.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Armstrong is really the best of both worlds but master of neither.

Batting Wise IMO Waugh > Armstrong > Miller
Bowling Miller > Armstrong > Waugh

So it's all about the balance of what the team needs. Waugh adds an awful lot with the bat 2 times average against the poms compared to the other two.

 

[hendrix]

Love the Verity pick.

 

[watson]

Not sure of the England number 6, could be Botham (or Grieg).

Number 6 for Australia will be interesting. Picking Lindwall at 9 indicates the Australian Number 8 can bat as well (Benaud, Davidson, Miller)

Australia

06. Miller / Waugh / Armstrong
07. Gilchrist
08. Benaud / Davidson / Miller
09. Lindwall
10. Warne ???

A 6 - 11 of say Miller, Gilchrist, Benaud, Lindwall, Warne is a very dangerous middle / lower order and could score 200 runs on there day.

On the other hand Simpson, Chappel, Border where all useful bowlers (between them they averaged 1.5 -> 2 wickets a Test), add Steve Waugh and you have your "Batting allrounder".

I will guess Miller and Benaud for 6 / 8 for Australia. Given that Australia has Bradman + Gilchrist and 8 / 9 (and probably 10) batsment who could bat, I do not see the need for a specialist Batsman at 6.

Having 5 ATG bowlers is a huge advantage. In a genuine 5 man attack, on most days 4 bowlers will do most of the bowling but it will be a different set of 4 bowler's each day depending who is bowling the best on that Day. Having 5 ATG bowlers improves the consistency of the Bowling, there is no bowler you can rest against.

All good points, so now you're confusing me

I will say though that having Benaud and Warne in the same team is one classical leg-spinner too many. If a team is to have 2 spinners then they should be at least be of different styles if you can help it.

Benaud would be an interesting choice. The main consideration would be whether his extra batting and captaincy skills outweigh Warne's/Grimmett's/Mailey's extra bowling skill.

 

[Red]

Reckon Watto will go for the O'Reilly/Warne double act here.

Just also reiterate by belief that you can't do a straight comparison of a batsman like Armstrong with Waugh based on their averages. Batting averages in Armstrong's era were not as high as modern averages.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

It just seems as though Armstrong struggled in England (24.64, 2 50's in 31 inns,) compared to belting them around in Australia (43.59, 4 100's, 4 50's 40 inns).

So even though they aren't comparable to covered pitch stats, it does indicate he had a tougher time over there.

 

[watson]

It just seems as though Armstrong struggled in England (24.64, 2 50's in 31 inns,) compared to belting them around in Australia (43.59, 4 100's, 4 50's 40 inns).

So even though they aren't comparable to covered pitch stats, it does indicate he had a tougher time over there.

Out of Armstrong and Noble, I prefer Noble.

I always wondered though how Monty would go at No.6 in an ATG side as an allrounder alternative to Miller? I think that its probably one spot too high despite that fact that he batted at No.4 and No.5 routinely for Australia, and made his best runs in the top 4.