Would you play Keith Miller in your Australia ATG XI?

[Coronis]

Beats all but WI and SA, runs Eng close.

England have a batting advantage for sure but damn their bowling.

 

[kyear2]

1st Xi

Trumper
Hayden
Bradman*
Smith
Ponting
Border
Gilchrist+
Davidson
Lindwall
O’Reilly
McGrath

2nd Xi

Morris
Simpson
Hill*
Harvey
Chappell
Waugh
Miller
Healy+
Cummins
Warne
Lillee

3rd Xi

Lawry
Ponsford
McCartney
Clarke*
McCabe
Hussey
Marsh+
Gillispee
Johnston
Spofforth
Grimmett

Not questioning your perspective.

Just on Chappell vs Ponting, feel like Chappell actually proved himself vs big time attacks, while don't think Punter ever really did? Chappell also the better option at 2nd slip. He would also be the default 5th bowling option as well.

 

[kyear2]

No it's not. You say the opposite about Kallis and make his role to be indispensable.

Becuse he goes beyond that and absolutely no cost to the batting. And there's more to him being indispensable than that.

 

[kyear2]

I don't see how you can entertain Lindwall over Lillee but find Miller as third seamer a bridge too far.

Having said that, I go back and forth between Cummins and Miller. If Cummins retires having improved on his current standing, I don't think I can deny him a place.

Peer rating had Lindwall retiring as the greatest fast bowler ever. And he retired at what age again?

 

[kyear2]

England have a batting advantage for sure but damn their bowling.

The team I select includes Tyson to go along with Trueman, but most wouldn't think he played long enough.
But outside of them it's not pretty.

 

[subshakerz]

Peer rating had Lindwall retiring as the greatest fast bowler ever. And he retired at what age again?

That's fine but Lillee had a ridiculous wickettaking level in his conditions that puts the Lindwall question to the side. I see Lillee outperforming McGrath in Aus. Of course questions on SC will persist.

 

[subshakerz]

Becuse he goes beyond that and absolutely no cost to the batting. And there's more to him being indispensable than that.

I think you are downplaying the degree you made his bowling out to be a big deal before.

 

[Line and Length]

The team I select includes Tyson to go along with Trueman, but most wouldn't think he played long enough.
But outside of them it's not pretty.

I agree with Tyson and Trueman.
Statham, Willis, Snow, Larwood (and even Anderson) are pretty good rather than 'not pretty'. Add spinners of the like of Laker, Verity, Underwood and Wardle and it's a more than competent attack.

 

[subshakerz]

I agree with Tyson and Trueman.
Statham, Willis, Snow, Larwood (and even Anderson) are pretty good rather than 'not pretty'. Add spinners of the like of Laker, Verity, Underwood and Wardle and it's a more than competent attack.

Anderson can't make it I assume?

 

[Line and Length]

Anderson can't make it I assume?

Makes my Second XI

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Not questioning your perspective.

Just on Chappell vs Ponting, feel like Chappell actually proved himself vs big time attacks, while don't think Punter ever really did? Chappell also the better option at 2nd slip. He would also be the default 5th bowling option as well.

Close one. Chappell did do absolute brilliant against pace. I have Ponting ahead as a batsman. Maybe Chappell being able to roll his arm over may play a role. I’m not really thinking of that tbh. Especially when you have O’Reilly, McGrath, Lindwall and Davidson.

The biggest thing that inclines me towards Chappell is how well he performed against West Indies. Given they are really the only team who really have the players to beat Australia.

 

[kyear2]

I think you are downplaying the degree you made his bowling out to be a big deal before.

Your argument was always that he didn't bowl enough, mine was that he was handled way better than Sobers was, which only helped with maintaining his batting standard. Not to add, when not bowling he was in the most important position on the field.

Be he was so much more than a part timer and an invaluable part of the SA attack, often being the 4th bowler.

 

[kyear2]

I agree with Tyson and Trueman.
Statham, Willis, Snow, Larwood (and even Anderson) are pretty good rather than 'not pretty'. Add spinners of the like of Laker, Verity, Underwood and Wardle and it's a more than competent attack.

Not pretty in comparison to the WI, Aus, SA and Pak.

 

[kyear2]

Close one. Chappell did do absolute brilliant against pace. I have Ponting ahead as a batsman. Maybe Chappell being able to roll his arm over may play a role. I’m not really thinking of that tbh. Especially when you have O’Reilly, McGrath, Lindwall and Davidson.

The biggest thing that inclines me towards Chappell is how well he performed against West Indies. Given they are really the only team who really have the players to beat Australia.

I would argue SA does as well.

 

[subshakerz]

Your argument was always that he didn't bowl enough, mine was that he was handled way better than Sobers was, which only helped with maintaining his batting standard. Not to add, when not bowling he was in the most important position on the field.

Be he was so much more than a part timer and an invaluable part of the SA attack, often being the 4th bowler.

Yeah but that doesn't square with how much emphasis you were putting on a 5th bowler over a better no.8 bat in a lineup. You made the former to be far more critical.

 

[subshakerz]

I would argue SA does as well.

SA with Donald, Steyn, Pollock, Tayfield and maybe Proctor certainly have the fire power to put Australia to the test.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

I would argue SA does as well.

They will be short in all department. Batsman, Fast Bowlers (smaller gap), Spinner and on top of that you have Bradman and Gilchrist. The gap is huge imho.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

SA with Donald, Steyn, Pollock, Tayfield and maybe Proctor certainly have the fire power to put Australia to the test.

Over a course of say 5 match series. Do you think they will have any chance? Maybe a match but over a series??

 

[subshakerz]

Over a course of say 5 match series. Do you think they will have any chance? Maybe a match but over a series??

Maybe in SA.

SA bat pretty deep. Richards, Smith, G Pollock, Kallis, Nourse, ABD, DeCock, Proctor/Faulkner, S Pollock, Steyn, Donald, Tayfield.

They just lack a bit of the lethal edge I think.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Maybe in SA.

SA bat pretty deep. Richards, Smith, G Pollock, Kallis, Nourse, ABD, DeCock, Proctor/Faulkner, S Pollock, Steyn, Donald, Tayfield.

They just lack a bit of the lethal edge I think.

This team looks good. But tbh not anything scary enough for me to think will have a chance on beating Australia over a course of the series. They just seem to clearly lack behind in everything compared to Australia except openers.