Top 30 batsmen of the modern era (1990s -Current)

[TheJediBrah]

It was also extremely attritional cricket in Windies from what I recall in the noughties, Lara rising above conditions aside.

late-00s maybe. I only really watched the Aus tours properly and 2003 was very batting friendly.

 

[Slifer]

late-00s maybe. I only really watched the Aus tours properly and 2003 was very batting friendly.

I honestly think a bigger factor was the fact that the great West Indies fast bowlers had retired by then. Hayden made 350 odd in 4 tests at 60+ bullying Dillon and co. No way he does that if Amby/Walsh were still around (as an example).

 

[Raz0r6ack]

"No way he does that"

He basically did it to Donald and Pollock after struggling against them earlier in his career.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Bond bowled very well when we won there in 2002 - player of the series. Fleming and Styris (on test debut) scored 100s.

That was only our 3rd of 5 test tours we've ever had to the Windies.
2 series won, 2 series lost, 1 drawn. Hope we go there again in the next few years.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I honestly think a bigger factor was the fact that the great West Indies fast bowlers had retired by then. Hayden made 350 odd in 4 tests at 60+ bullying Dillon and co. No way he does that if Amby/Walsh were still around (as an example).

Wasn't just the Aussies though. WI made a lot of runs against a strong Aus attack. Chanderpaul made a 60-ball ton and there was the 400+ run chase.

 

[Slifer]

"No way he does that"

He basically did it to Donald and Pollock after struggling against them earlier in his career.

In the two previous Australian tours to the Caribbean generally runs were hard to come by. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that had the WI still had a formidable attack in 03, then the trend would've continued.

 

[Slifer]

Wasn't just the Aussies though. WI made a lot of runs against a strong Aus attack. Chanderpaul made a 60-ball ton and there was the 400+ run chase.

Wrong. McGrath missed half the tests and Warne was serving a ban. Wi did chase 400 vs a very good attack, I'll give you that.

 

[Slifer]

Bond bowled very well when we won there in 2002 - player of the series. Fleming and Styris (on test debut) scored 100s.

That was only our 3rd of 5 test tours we've ever had to the Windies.
2 series won, 2 series lost, 1 drawn. Hope we go there again in the next few years.

I hope not lol. Nz will absolutely hammer WI in the WI

 

[TheJediBrah]

Wrong. McGrath missed half the tests and Warne was serving a ban. Wi did chase 400 vs a very good attack, I'll give you that.

Nah they were pretty flat wickets. Definitely got harder on the next couple tours. You mentioned Hayden averaging 60 odd that series but that was the only the 5th highest of the Aus batting averages! Ponting averaged 130, Waugh 75, Gilchrist 70, Langer 69 and Lehmann nearly 60. You can't put all that down to a crap WI bowling attack.

btw Gillespie, Lee and MacGill played all 4 Tests and McGrath 2 of them, it was a very strong attack even without Warne. And Aus played 5 bowlers most games too which they virtually never did any time before or after that series. They didn't just do that for fun.

 

[Slifer]

Nah they were pretty flat wickets. Definitely got harder on the next couple tours. You mentioned Hayden averaging 60 odd that series but that was the only the 5th highest of the Aus batting averages! Ponting averaged 130, Waugh 75, Gilchrist 70, Langer 69 and Lehmann nearly 60. You can't put all that down to a crap WI bowling attack.

btw Gillespie, Lee and MacGill played all 4 Tests and McGrath 2 of them, it was a very strong attack even without Warne. And Aus played 5 bowlers most games too which they virtually never did any time before or after that series. They didn't just do that for fun.

Gillespie + Macgill+Lee is not a strong attack. And I'm happy you mentioned that Hayden who averaged 60+ was the 5th highest. Back in 95 two Australians averaged 40+, ditto '99. Maybe 03 was down to flatter pitches or just a better batting lineup. Or maybe the wi bowling was just significantly weaker. I put it down to all three.

 

[Chrish]

Gillespie was awesome! Very underrated bowler..

 

[Slifer]

Gillespie was awesome! Very underrated bowler..

He was.... Lee not so much and MacGill was a very good spinner

 

[Chrish]

Lee’s bowling wasn’t what I would describe as great, but when you have a bowler in the team who can consistently hit 145k, it would always make the opposition fear you. It’s a huge psychological factor. I had seen him ruffling up top order batsmen with short balls and opposition tail always dreaded him. And he had a great stamina; could bowl whole overs with 145k + and I don’t recall him breaking down that often.

I would happily take such a bowler in my Xi unless I have absolute top tier choice available.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Gillespie + Macgill+Lee is not a strong attack. And I'm happy you mentioned that Hayden who averaged 60+ was the 5th highest. Back in 95 two Australians averaged 40+, ditto '99. Maybe 03 was down to flatter pitches or just a better batting lineup. Or maybe the wi bowling was just significantly weaker. I put it down to all three.

I was only ever talking about the 00's. I don't know why you're talking about the 90s, literally all I said was that 2003 were flat pitches. Look at all the evidence I've already put forward. Every single Aus batsman averaged 60+ except Lehmann (58). You think that's all down to bad WI bowling? Chasing 418 in the 4th innings was a coincidence? Chanderpaul making a 60 ball ton? Aus played 5 bowlers all series for the only time 5 years either side of that series. Coincidence? Don't get why you are refusing to accept it

And **** yes Gillespie + Macgill+Lee is a strong attack.

 

[Slifer]

I was only ever talking about the 00's. I don't know why you're talking about the 90s, literally all I said was that 2003 were flat pitches. Look at all the evidence I've already put forward. Every single Aus batsman averaged 60+ except Lehmann (58). You think that's all down to bad WI bowling? Chasing 418 in the 4th innings was a coincidence? Chanderpaul making a 60 ball ton? Aus played 5 bowlers all series for the only time 5 years either side of that series. Coincidence? Don't get why you are refusing to accept it

And **** yes Gillespie + Macgill+Lee is a strong attack.

Yeah the pitches were flat. I'll concede that but no, Gillespie +Macgill+Lee does not a strong attack make. They got away with it because their batting was so far ahead of the WI that no matter what score WI put up, they'd make much more. I'd love to see how they'd have gone say vs England in 05 with the same attack...ie no Warne, no McGrath...

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah the pitches were flat. I'll concede that

Then why the argument? That was my whole point.

Also you must have ridiculous standards. If you don't think Lee, Gillespie, MacGill (+ McGrath for half the Tests), in an attack with 5 bowlers is "strong" then a very small minority of international attacks in history have been "strong".

 

[Slifer]

Then why the argument? That was my whole point.

Also you must have ridiculous standards. If you don't think Lee, Gillespie, MacGill (+ McGrath for half the Tests), in an attack with 5 bowlers is "strong" then a very small minority of international attacks in history have been "strong".

My argument was that Australian made runs because of a combination of flat, wickets, a stronger lineup and a much weaker Wi bowling attack than prior tours. Australia making runs was not just down to flat wickets.

The second part, yeah if you add McGrath to the lineup yeah its strong. When I say the attacks weren't strong i specifically meant those in the first two tests, i thought that was obvious but nevermind. You keep talking about 5 bowlers 3 of whom are Lee, Bichel and Hogg. 2 decent fast bowlers and a decent (to put it mildly) spinner. Nope not s strong attack imo.

 

[Burgey]

Lee wasn’t really decent though, other than in his first and last 18 months. In between he was ****ing trash for most of his career.

 

[TheJediBrah]

My argument was that Australian made runs because of a combination of flat, wickets, a stronger lineup and a much weaker Wi bowling attack than prior tours. Australia making runs was not just down to flat wickets.

The second part, yeah if you add McGrath to the lineup yeah its strong. When I say the attacks weren't strong i specifically meant those in the first two tests, i thought that was obvious but nevermind. You keep talking about 5 bowlers 3 of whom are Lee, Bichel and Hogg. 2 decent fast bowlers and a decent (to put it mildly) spinner. Nope not s strong attack imo.

That's fine, you must have extremely high standards for a "strong" attack

 

[Victor Ian]

He still took his wickets at a decent rate, which was his job at the time, as Australia could afford the extra runs he conceded, but wanted time to win matches. Yeah, he could have done better.