best Australian lineup

[Coronis]

Which match? Gabba? Yeah I know. I'm not saying they were rubbish and shouldn't have played rather they weren't at their absolute best

Anyway Stuart Clark was easily the pick of the bowlers that series

View attachment 27853

Pfft, didn’t even have a 5 fer.

 

[honestbharani]

I usually don't wade into these sorts of debates too much because it's just not my strength of cricket knowledge but surely "includes Bradman" is a basic prerequisite for consideration in Tests. There's ATG side as the 2003/07 Aus teams were, then there's "ATG side effectively playing with two extra batsmen".

Like most debates on batting, its more fun when you exclude Bradman.

 

[stephen]

Which match? Gabba? Yeah I know. I'm not saying they were rubbish and shouldn't have played rather they weren't at their absolute best

Anyway Stuart Clark was easily the pick of the bowlers that series

View attachment 27853

Fair enough, I got to see McGrath's last 5fer in test cricket in person, which made his performances stick out more in my mind.

 

[sunilz]

I usually don't wade into these sorts of debates too much because it's just not my strength of cricket knowledge but surely "includes Bradman" is a basic prerequisite for consideration in Tests. There's ATG side as the 2003/07 Aus teams were, then there's "ATG side effectively playing with two extra batsmen".

Bradman or Mcgrath + Warne combo.
I feel latter are bigger match winner in test .

Take for eg. even while batting like Bradman, Steve Smith couldn't win Aus series in ENG and IND.

Whereas I can't remember any series when both McGrath + Warne performed well and Aus lost.

 

[sunilz]

Sky sports ran a simulation exercise where Aus 2002 came out to be winner in a 5 match test series over AUS 1948.

In the SF game AUS 1948 side beat Eng 2010 while Aus 2002 beat IND 2018

In the QF
Aus 1948 beat SA 1969/70
IND 2018 beat Aus 1959
AUS 2002 beat WI 1982
ENG 2010 beat SA 2003

 

[honestbharani]

Bradman or Mcgrath + Warne combo.
I feel latter are bigger match winner in test .

Take for eg. even while batting like Bradman, Steve Smith couldn't win Aus series in ENG and IND.

Whereas I can't remember any series when both McGrath + Warne performed well and Aus lost.

Batsmen need to make runs for bowlers to win matches and bowlers need to take wickets for batsmen to win matches. Shocking, isn't it?

 

[trundler]

Sky sports ran a simulation exercise where Aus 2002 came out to be winner in a 5 match test series.

Reckon @AndrewB can do a better job

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Sky sports ran a simulation exercise where Aus 2002 came out to be winner in a 5 match test series.

They picked Aus 2002 over 2006 without really justifying it tho

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The greatest team of all time was the one lucky to escape from Perth with a drawn series against NZ in 2001.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Sky sports ran a simulation exercise where Aus 2002 came out to be winner in a 5 match test series over AUS 1948.

In the SF game AUS 1948 side beat Eng 2010 while Aus 2002 beat IND 2018

In the QF
Aus 1948 beat SA 1969/70
IND 2018 beat Aus 1959
AUS 2002 beat WI 1982
ENG 2010 beat SA 2013.

That's a silly draw if it eliminates the 1969/70 SA team and the 1982 WI before the semifinals. And how could the 2010 England team beat the 2013 SA team? The latter was full of ATGs.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

That's a silly draw if it eliminates the 1969/70 SA team and the 1982 WI before the semifinals. And how could the 2010 England team beat the 2013 SA team? The latter was full of ATGs.

they meant SA 2003 (SA 2013 were not even in it, presumably cos SA 2003 bashed England so hard the English Sky Sports people still had traumas about it)

 

[sunilz]

That's a silly draw if it eliminates the 1969/70 SA team and the 1982 WI before the semifinals. And how could the 2010 England team beat the 2013 SA team? The latter was full of ATGs.

That draw is on the basis of list that @Magrat Garlick had posted earlier.
1st vs 8th, 2nd vs 7th, 3rd vs 6th, 4th vs 5th.

Although I can't understand how WI 1982 side was ranked 8th

 

[TheJediBrah]

Which match? Gabba? Yeah I know. I'm not saying they were rubbish and shouldn't have played rather they weren't at their absolute best

Anyway Stuart Clark was easily the pick of the bowlers that series

Stuart Clark was absurdly good for about a year and a half

 

[Chrish]

2004. In order for a side to be called ATG, team has to dominate world cricket for close to a decade IMO. 1948 team didn’t do it. 70s SA team didn’t do it. There are valid reasons why this didn’t happen (world war and SA politics), but I judge the sides based on how good they were, not what could have been.

Only WI 80s and Aus 2000s are ATG sides IMO with WI being the GOAT team (didn’t loose the series for a decade iirc?). Aus side does have some blemish against them (loosing a series against India, Ashes 2005. Drawn series against India and NZ at home etc. although they were far better at enforcing results than WI who drew a lot).

 

[TheJediBrah]

The greatest team of all time was the one lucky to escape from Perth with a drawn series against NZ in 2001.

Aus side does have some blemish against them (loosing a series against India, Ashes 2005. Drawn series against India and NZ at home etc. although they were far better at enforcing results than WI who drew a lot).

You guys just trying to annoy me?

 

[stephen]

The 80s Windies sides got so many more draws than the Australian side did, in large part due to their awful over rates. They'd either roll you on a pitch that had something for the bowlers or play out a draw on a good batting pitch (that is, if they didn't roll you anyway). So they never really gave teams the opportunity to beat them. Australia were more aggressive and got through their overs so they gave plenty of opportunity for a good opponent to beat them. The Australian team emerged in a far more competitive era as well. In the Windies day only really Pakistan and England were any good. Australia had been smashed by the Packer split, India hadn't emerged New Zealand had a couple of good players but weren't a great side and both South Africa and Sri Lanka weren't around. In the Australian era, South Africa, Pakistan and the West Indies were strong outfits (at least for part of the reign), New Zealand were about what they were in the 80s, Sri Lanka and India were both very strong at home, and in the case of India had a very good batting lineup that could perform away. England were worse, but overall the standard of opposition was much greater between 95 and 07 than it was between 79 and 94.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The 80s Windies sides got so many more draws than the Australian side did, in large part due to their awful over rates. They'd either roll you on a pitch that had something for the bowlers or play out a draw on a good batting pitch (that is, if they didn't roll you anyway). So they never really gave teams the opportunity to beat them. Australia were more aggressive and got through their overs so they gave plenty of opportunity for a good opponent to beat them. The Australian team emerged in a far more competitive era as well. In the Windies day only really Pakistan and England were any good. Australia had been smashed by the Packer split, India hadn't emerged New Zealand had a couple of good players but weren't a great side and both South Africa and Sri Lanka weren't around. In the Australian era, South Africa, Pakistan and the West Indies were strong outfits (at least for part of the reign), New Zealand were about what they were in the 80s, Sri Lanka and India were both very strong at home, and in the case of India had a very good batting lineup that could perform away. England were worse, but overall the standard of opposition was much greater between 95 and 07 than it was between 79 and 94.

NZ were better than England during the 80s - 3rd best team of the decade behind WI and Pakistan. The NZ team during the WI era was much better than the NZ team during the Australian era. NZ didn't lose a test series at home during the 80s, including a 1-0 win over the Windies in 79/80 and a 1-1 draw against them in 1986/7 (both 3 matches), while NZ lost a 4-test series 2-0 in the Caribbean. England usually got thrashed by the Windies.

 

[stephen]

NZ were better than England during the 80s - 3rd best team of the decade behind WI and Pakistan. The NZ team during the WI era was much better than the NZ team during the Australian era. NZ didn't lose a test series at home during the 80s, including a 1-0 win over the Windies in 79/80 and a 1-1 draw against them in 1986/7 (both 3 matches), while NZ lost a 4-test series 2-0 in the Caribbean. England usually got thrashed by the Windies.

England get thrashed by the West Indies even today though. But maybe you're right and I'm underestimating that NZ side.

 

[mr_mister]

Any argument for that small period where England had Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Hammond to go with Tate, Larwood and Verity all playing together?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Any argument for that small period where England had Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Hammond to go with Tate, Larwood and Verity all playing together?

To be the best Australian lineup? Probably not