Cricinfo All-time series "Eleven of the best"

[wfdu_ben91]

Alltime XI For Cricinfo
Victor Trumper
Matthew Hayden
Sir Donald Bradman
Ricky Ponting
Greg Chappell
Keith Miller
Adam Gilchrist (wk)
Shane Warne
Dennis Lillee
Bill O'Reilly
Glenn McGrath

My Australian Alltime XI
Victor Trumper
Matthew Hayden
Sir Donald Bradman
Greg Chappell
Steve Waugh
Ricky Ponting
Adam Gilchrist (wk)
Keith Miller
Shane Warne (c)
Dennis Lillee
Glenn McGrath

I'd like to say that Allan Border is extremely unlucky not to make either XI as he has the highest average in the 1980s against the West Indies, who is arguably the best bowling unit of alltime. Although some did average higher, Border played allot more matches then them. However, it is puzzling why people are selecting Arthur Morris and Bill Ponsford considering that both played along side Sir Donald Bradman but yet failed to average over 50 in their overall record.

After Bradman retired (3 years into Morris' career), Morris only averaged 37 from 32 Tests. It wasn't because of a rapid decline in the last year or so in his career, either, because following Bradman's retirement, Morris only averaged over 40 once in a calendar year. The majority of Ponsford's career was played along side Bradman and Ponsford only averaged 36 in his career when not playing along side Bradman.

Comparing them to someone like Hayden, is quite similar because they all played is fairly strong teams, although I'd say playing along side Bradman, who completely demoralized bowling attacks would be a far more easier task then playing in the current Australian side of the past decade when it comes to batting and I'd even rate Langer above Ponsford or Morris.

Australia was never challenged when Morris played alongside Bradman and Morris averaged in the 41, 33 and 31 in the series' where Australia lost or drawn after Bradman's departure. Ponsford also failed miserably in lost series, when Australia was beaten in 1926, 1928/29 and 1932/33 where he averaged 12, 6 and 23 respectively.

Over Hayden's career, Australia were challenged several times, mostly by India and on most occasions Hayden thrived. Australia were challenged by India in 2001, India 2003, England 2005, India 2007, India 2008 and South Africa 2008. Hayden did perform against quality opposition. Here are Hayden's performances against the opposition when they have really challenged Australia in a series:

- India in India, 2001 (549 runs @ 109.80 - 2 hundreds) *5 outs
- India in Australia, 2003/04 (451 runs @ 64.42 - 1 hundred) *7 outs
- England in England, 2005 (318 runs @ 35.33 - 1 hundred) *9 outs
- India in Australia, 2007/08 (410 runs @ 82.00 - 3 hundreds) *5 outs
- India in India, 2008 (234 runs @ 33.42 - 0 hundreds) *7 outs
- South Africa in Australia, 2008/09 (117 runs @ 19.50 - 0 hundreds) *6 outs

Overall: 22 matches, 43 inns, 4 no, 2079 runs @ 53.30 - 7 hundreds & 7 fifties

Even comparing when his teammates, Hayden tops the averages, runs and hundreds in those series' aswell.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[subshakerz]

My ideal side would have four specialist bowlers + the all rounder (I prefer sides that are bowler-heavy rather than batter heavy). Don't really see the need for O'Reilly and Warne together unless the pitch is a raging turner. Bowling should be Miller, Lindwall, McGrath, Lilllee, Warne.

 

[aussie]

Alltime XI For Cricinfo
However, it is puzzling why people are selecting Arthur Morris and Bill Ponsford considering that both played along side Sir Donald Bradman but yet failed to average over 50 in their overall record.

After Bradman retired (3 years into Morris' career), Morris only averaged 37 from 32 Tests. It wasn't because of a rapid decline in the last year or so in his career, either, because following Bradman's retirement, Morris only averaged over 40 once in a calendar year. The majority of Ponsford's career was played along side Bradman and Ponsford only averaged 36 in his career when not playing along side Bradman.

Comparing them to someone like Hayden, is quite similar because they all played is fairly strong teams, although I'd say playing along side Bradman, who completely demoralized bowling attacks would be a far more easier task then playing in the current Australian side of the past decade when it comes to batting and I'd even rate Langer above Ponsford or Morris.

Australia was never challenged when Morris played alongside Bradman and Morris averaged in the 41, 33 and 31 in the series' where Australia lost or drawn after Bradman's departure. Ponsford also failed miserably in lost series, when Australia was beaten in 1926, 1928/29 and 1932/33 where he averaged 12, 6 and 23 respectively.

Over Hayden's career, Australia were challenged several times, mostly by India and on most occasions Hayden thrived. Australia were challenged by India in 2001, India 2003, England 2005, India 2007, India 2008 and South Africa 2008. Hayden did perform against quality opposition. Here are Hayden's performances against the opposition when they have really challenged Australia in a series:

- India in India, 2001 (549 runs @ 109.80 - 2 hundreds) *5 outs
- India in Australia, 2003/04 (451 runs @ 64.42 - 1 hundred) *7 outs
- England in England, 2005 (318 runs @ 35.33 - 1 hundred) *9 outs
- India in Australia, 2007/08 (410 runs @ 82.00 - 3 hundreds) *5 outs
- India in India, 2008 (234 runs @ 33.42 - 0 hundreds) *7 outs
- South Africa in Australia, 2008/09 (117 runs @ 19.50 - 0 hundreds) *6 outs

Overall: 22 matches, 43 inns, 4 no, 2079 runs @ 53.30 - 7 hundreds & 7 fifties

Even comparing when his teammates, Hayden tops the averages, runs and hundreds in those series' aswell.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

As a tireless defender of Matt the Big Bat. I agree with your analysis on old boys Morris & Ponsford. But i think you are slightly off on breakdown of Hayden's career...i'll have to get back to you on it though, since it will take alot of typing.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

They finally selected the XI.

Australia's finest | All-time XIs | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

Cricinfo XI's
Victor Trumper
Arthur Morris
Sir Donald Bradman
Greg Chappell
Allan Border
Keith Miller
Adam Gilchrist (wk)
Shane Warne
Bill O'Reilly
Dennis Lillee

Cricinfo Readers XI
Matthew Hayden
Bill Ponsford
Sir Donald Bradman
Ricky Ponting
Steve Waugh
Adam Gilchrist
Keith Miller
Shane Warne
Bill O'Reilly
Dennis Lillee
Glenn McGrath

Here's a baffling stat that they noted...
In the readers' poll, Hayden got more than twice the number of votes Ponsford did, and more than Taylor, Morris and Trumper combined.

So Hayden got more votes then the two openers that got selected combined. Really shows that these guys know what they're talking about. Readers XI is far better, IMO.

 

[bagapath]

Well, I think I've got 10 out of 11 in my team from the cricinfo XI. and the one change - border for ponting - is no big deal for me. in fact, border could be better at no.5 than ponting. having a left hander is another advantage. so totally satisfied with the team.

 

[marc71178]

Here's a baffling stat that they noted...
In the readers' poll, Hayden got more than twice the number of votes Ponsford did, and more than Taylor, Morris and Trumper combined.

So Hayden got more votes then the two openers that got selected combined. Really shows that these guys know what they're talking about.

Actually it really shows that when selecting best of sides, a Cricket historian will always do a better job then Joe Public with their 10 year memory.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Actually it really shows that when selecting best of sides, a Cricket historian will always do a better job then Joe Public with their 10 year memory.

Not really, it's a matter of opinion and Hayden got more then double the amount of votes of Trumper and Morris combine. That's saying something.

 

[Ikki]

Trumper and Morris over Hayden? Pretty weak IMO. Langer is also very underrated.

I like the 2nd side more (the Reader's XI) but I'd rather not have O'Reilly and have Greg Chappell.

My side would have been:

Matthew Hayden
Justin Langer
Sir Donald Bradman
Greg Chappell
Ricky Ponting
Steve Waugh
Adam Gilchrist
Keith Miller
Shane Warne
Dennis Lillee
Glenn McGrath

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Matthew Hayden
Justin Langer
Sir Donald Bradman
Greg Chappell
Ricky Ponting
Steve Waugh
Adam Gilchrist
Keith Miller
Shane Warne
Dennis Lillee
Glenn McGrath

Agree with that, except Langer facing the new ball and Steve Waugh at 5 and Ponting at 6.

 

[aussie]

Actually it really shows that when selecting best of sides, a Cricket historian will always do a better job then Joe Public with their 10 year memory.

So. They are many cricket fans who are students of the game, that aren't cricket historians by profession. SJS being the perfect example..

 

[aussie]

Trumper and Morris over Hayden? Pretty weak IMO. Langer is also very underrated.

Word. Hayden i guess we will have to accept will always have more doubters than backers TBH.

While Langer clearly is EXTREMELY underrated no doubt. I guess when people think of this little short man againts in a hypotetcial match againts some of the great bowlers of all-time, they think they would break him up haha. Which is unfortunate since the Ashes 05 & vs Akthat in Perth 04, proves otherwise.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Hayden and Ponting probably don't get as much credit as they deserve due to their "Them against us" attitude on the field and in the media over their careers.

 

[subshakerz]

Dont have major issues with the XI selected, I would prefer Ponting be there but Border is pretty close to him in quality. Two spinners is a bit much, IMO, Lindwall should have come for O'Reilly. If Warne can't spin the team out himself, I dont see how another spinner will help.

 

[TazzX]

Langer and Hayden never faced a quality attack in their lives. There is just no-way they should be in that team.

 

[subshakerz]

Langer and Hayden never faced a quality attack in their lives. There is just no-way they should be in that team.

Not true. In Hayden's case, he just happened to be in poor form every time he faced a high quality pace attack.

 

[Ikki]

Langer and Hayden never faced a quality attack in their lives. There is just no-way they should be in that team.

The attacks Hayden and Langer faced are comparable to the ones Morris faced, for example. Trumper, well, that might be opening Pandora's box because his record is iffy and it's his legacy that is more resonating than anything else.

 

[The Sean]

Hayden i guess we will have to accept will always have more doubters than backers TBH.

His overwhelming support in the public poll would suggest the opposite to me.

 

[bagapath]

His overwhelming support in the public poll would suggest the opposite to me.

that is understandable because we have seen him play and enjoyed his batting (even I have, to a large extent) whereas trumper and morris are mere names. and they wont even sound familiar to most of the voters. but would hayden get strong support for selection 50 years after retirement, just like arthur morris has? or 100 years later, like trumper has? I doubt it. hayden was a fantastic cricketer. but he is likely to be bunched with the dougie walterses and ken barringtons. the membership to the all-time great club is too difficult. if lack of aggression was ken's problem and bad ashes record dougie's, then unsound back foot play was matt's shortcoming.

 

[bagapath]

the other interesting aspect about this aussie XI is that ten of the eleven players were the best in whatever they did in their times. if gilly was the best wicket keeper-batsman of his era then miller was the best all-rounder for his time. similarly border was the rear guard expert of the 80s and lillee and mcgrath were the best pacers of 70s and 00s. this holds true for everyone except arthur morris - he was probably the second best opener of his era behind sir len hutton. it just goes to show that australia can put together a real dream XI of world beaters. there is no one just making up the numbers here.

 

[The Sean]

that is understandable because we have seen him play and enjoyed his batting (even I have, to a large extent) whereas trumper and morris are mere names. and they wont even sound familiar to most of the voters. but would hayden get strong support for selection 50 years after retirement, just like arthur morris has? or 100 years later, like trumper has? I doubt it. hayden was a fantastic cricketer. but he is likely to be bunched with the dougie walterses and ken barringtons. the membership to the all-time great club is too difficult. if lack of aggression was ken's problem and bad ashes record dougie's, then unsound back foot play was matt's shortcoming.

Fair points mate - I'm actually really interested to see how Hayden is viewed by subsequent generations. No doubt there are many who'll either remember, or note from reports of the time (and CW debates), that he played in a batsman friendly era and that he cashed in mightily. But there will surely be others as there are today who will look at the numbers, and those of his contemporaries - particularly the other openers of the era - and note that you can't be as successful as Hayden was for as long as he was without being something special.