I think the 69-70 South African team would have beaten Australia in any circumstances, but it is only fair to point out that Australia toured there immediately after a long and extremely difficult and stressful tour of India. Their players, especially McKenzie, were physically depleted and exhausted.

McKenzie was never really the same bowler after that Indian tour. Australia went on to defeat against Illingworth's team the following year, again showing frailty against fast bowling.

Soon, of course, they had a fast attack of their own.

Choosing the best Australian eleven which actually took the field is very hard.

One reason is that the best on paper eleven did not always actually play. For example, Bradman's best post WWII side would almost certainly include all of Johnston, Toshack, Harvey and Tallon, but I'm pretty sure they never took the field in the same Test match.

Then there's the point that actual teams invariably contain great players at different stages of their careers, some in decline, others not yet at their best. England in 1953 is a good example. Bedser and Hutton were still at their best, but May and Trueman were not yet great players. The Bradman of 1948 was not the same player as he was pre-war. And so on.

But even then, I'm not sure I could distinguish between the best of the actual Bradman XI's and those of 1921, 1974-76, 2001, or perhaps 1902.

quote:

Originally posted by Jonatho_D.:

quote:

Originally posted by Nevilrd:

quote:

Originally posted by Jonatho_D.:

quote:

Originally posted by Nevilrd:

quote:

Originally posted by Jonatho_D.:

quote:

Originally posted by Nevilrd:
Maybe for Australia the line up that beat England at the Oval in 2001..

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
M Waugh
S Waugh
Martyn
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

I don't think Lee belongs there, it would be stronger if maybe MacGill or Fleming were playing. One of the all time best captains though....

SA in 1970 would be stronger.

O....k, I'd have to disagree with that one...

Over 55,000 test runs, 1600+ Test wickets and over 600 catchs... They don't come much better than that.

On what point?

That team stuffed Aussie 4-0 andwas improving with the likes of Rice and Vander Bijl coming in.

Which shows you dont know much about cricket.

Ever heard of Graeme Pollock or Barry Richards?
They stuffed a different Aussie team 4-0 and I doubt they could beat the 2001 team....

Graeme Pollock? Barry Richards? I've never heard of them.. were they any good....?

The Saffer team of the 1970s were the could/would/shoulda team... but they never did....
So I'd take proven test players over "maybe" players thanks very much...

quote:

Originally posted by Nevilrd:
Graeme Pollock? Barry Richards? I've never heard of them.. were they any good....?
The Saffer team of the 1970s were the could/would/shoulda team... but they never did....
So I'd take proven test players over "maybe" players thanks very much...

Are you trying to be funny? Or do you genuinely not know (and call youselves a cricket fan)?

Or is there (maybe) a serious point that you are making? In which case please make your point.

One wonders (in theory) if the situation were reversed and it was SA who were taking the long trip home after the Indian tour by boat and meeting the current Australian side in Australia.
The 4-0 mauling it handed out to Bill Lawry's Australia in 1969-70 was South Africa's last Test series before returning to the international fold some 22 seasons later.

South Africa's expulsion left quite a few questions unanswered, particularly the one concerning Barry Richards, whose batting greatness, sadly, could not be measured at the highest level for a longer duration of time. Similarly with the exceptionally talented Mike Procter.

Possibly the subsequent exclusion has, over the years, lent a touch of romance to the '69-70 series. South Africa was led by Ali Bacher, and its line-up was not only bristling with talent, but equally hungry for success.

Its cricket relations were limited to England, Australia and New Zealand for obvious reasons and South Africa, in the preceding seasons, had won its first rubber against Australia, 3-1 at home in 1966-67, beaten England 1-0 in a three-Test series in England in 1965, lost to England 1-0 at home in 1964-65, and drawn 0-0 the three-Test series against New Zealand away in 1963-64.

Australia, meanwhile, had trounced India 4-0 Down Under in 1967-68, drawn the Ashes series away 1-1 in 1968, defeated the West Indies 3-1 in Australia in 1968-69 and beaten India 3-1 in the sub-continent in 1969-70 to be rated the top Test nation in the world.

Lawry's side had only a matter of days to adjust from the slow, spinning pitches of India to the green, seaming surfaces of South Africa and were duly blown away in the four-match series. It can always be said in Australia's defence that the team was drained and distracted from the long tour of India.

It was indeed a sign of things to come when medium-pacer Peter Pollock took the wickets of Lawry and Ian Chappell, who batted so well in India, in the space of four deliveries in the first Test. Australia was shot out for 164 in the first innings. The pattern of dramatic batting collapses continued throughout the series.

Such was its domination, that South Africa could afford leaving out wicketkeeper Denis Lindsay, who had been Australia's nemesis three years earlier. Lindsay returned for the final two Tests, lending more depth to the batting.

In what was his debut series, opener Richards made 29 and 32 in the first Test, 140 in the second, 65 and 35 in the third and 81 and 126 in the fourth.

The talented Graeme Pollock, walking in at No. 4, stroked 49 and 50 in the opening Test, 274 in the second, 52 and 87 in the third and one and four in the fourth. Barlow scored two centuries. New-ball bowler Procter took 26 wickets at an average of 13.57.

No Australian figured in the list of century-makers while Graham McKenzie, who impressed in India (21 wickets in five Tests), took only one wicket in the three Tests he played in.

Outplayed in all departments, Australia's fielding left a lot to be desired. So much that 13 chances were missed off the mystery spinner John Gleeson.

UNQUOTE.

One senses Australia had had enough when they landed in SA.



QUOTE

The first two lines are mine and the QUOTE should have started then.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
Choosing the best Australian eleven which actually took the field is very hard.

One reason is that the best on paper eleven did not always actually play. For example, Bradman's best post WWII side would almost certainly include all of Johnston, Toshack, Harvey and Tallon, but I'm pretty sure they never took the field in the same Test match.

Then there's the point that actual teams invariably contain great players at different stages of their careers, some in decline, others not yet at their best. England in 1953 is a good example. Bedser and Hutton were still at their best, but May and Trueman were not yet great players. The Bradman of 1948 was not the same player as he was pre-war. And so on.

But even then, I'm not sure I could distinguish between the best of the actual Bradman XI's and those of 1921, 1974-76, 2001, or perhaps 1902.

Realistically, I think the only way to look at this is to see the side that took the field and then consider how good they were over their whole career. If you start looking at how good each was at that particular time it gets far too subjective.

Of course that brings out some anomolies - the 1928 Australian side with Woodfull, Ryder, Ponny, a young DGB and Jackson, Clarrie and looks sensational on paper but was demolished by the England side that I think comes close to the best ever (Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hendren, Tate, Larwood etc). Perhaps the 1912 side that Allan D mentioned comes close.

But then, 18 months later, Australia won the Ashes against a not much different England side.

Of the Australian sides the side in DGB's last test must have been closest to the strongest Austrlian batting side ever on paper (Morris, Barnes, Bradman, Hassett, Harvey, Miller, Loxton, Lindwall, Tallon) and a decent bowling side too with Lindwall, Miller and leftie Johnston. If Toshack had played instead of Ring then I think it would be a no brainer.

The 2001 Oval side mentioned above is probably the closest challenger. Either that, or the team that took the field in the first test against India earlier that year which had Slater for Martyn and Fleming for Lee.

Re the Windies, I always thought the 1984 side that toured Oz which included both Lloyd and Richardson was probably the stongest.

The side that lost the final test of that series was GG, Dessie, Richardson, Gomes, Viv, Lloyd, Dujon, Marshall, Holding, Garner and Walsh.

A team where Walsh is the "easy" bowler and Richardson and Gomes batting together was a quite time for your bowlers. Small wonder those guys had a habit of ending careers.

quote:

Originally posted by Furriner:

quote:

Originally posted by Nevilrd:
Graeme Pollock? Barry Richards? I've never heard of them.. were they any good....?
The Saffer team of the 1970s were the could/would/shoulda team... but they never did....
So I'd take proven test players over "maybe" players thanks very much...

Are you trying to be funny? Or do you genuinely not know (and call youselves a cricket fan)?

Or is there (maybe) a serious point that you are making? In which case please make your point.

Furriner: I think it's fair to say that Nevilrd's post was very much tongue in cheek!

quote:

Originally posted by B@sil:

quote:

Originally posted by Furriner:

quote:

Originally posted by Nevilrd:
Graeme Pollock? Barry Richards? I've never heard of them.. were they any good....?
The Saffer team of the 1970s were the could/would/shoulda team... but they never did....
So I'd take proven test players over "maybe" players thanks very much...

Are you trying to be funny? Or do you genuinely not know (and call youselves a cricket fan)?

Or is there (maybe) a serious point that you are making? In which case please make your point.

Furriner: I think it's fair to say that Nevilrd's post was very much tongue in cheek!

Not too sure about that.

quote:

Originally posted by Jonatho_D.:

quote:

Originally posted by B@sil:

quote:

Originally posted by Furriner:

quote:

Originally posted by Nevilrd:
Graeme Pollock? Barry Richards? I've never heard of them.. were they any good....?
The Saffer team of the 1970s were the could/would/shoulda team... but they never did....
So I'd take proven test players over "maybe" players thanks very much...

Are you trying to be funny? Or do you genuinely not know (and call youselves a cricket fan)?

Or is there (maybe) a serious point that you are making? In which case please make your point.

Furriner: I think it's fair to say that Nevilrd's post was very much tongue in cheek!

Not too sure about that.

Don't worry I know exactly who they are, I wouldn't dare post about the lost South African generation if I didn't know who they were....

Nevilrd - I take it you aren't really new to these parts.

quote:

Originally posted by Nevilrd:
Maybe for Australia the line up that beat England at the Oval in 2001..

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
M Waugh
S Waugh
Martyn
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

I don't think Lee belongs there, it would be stronger if maybe MacGill or Fleming were playing. One of the all time best captains though....

I'd agree that this is perhaps the strongest side Aus has had on the field in the past 30 years. However I think the following side (and I've done this before) would give them a run. The Aus side from T4 of 1974/75 side v England at SCG:

IR Redpath
RB McCosker
*IM Chappell
GS Chappell
R Edwards
KD Walters
+RW Marsh
MHN Walker
DK Lillee
AA Mallett
JR Thomson  

Skully - if we were taking a snapshot of form and ability at the time of the match, you'd be pretty close.

Aye. And how carp are those stoopid Dragons JGK???

quote:

Originally posted by skully:
Aye. And how carp are those stoopid Dragons JGK???

Seriously carp - and when you consider that 3 of the 4 NSW SOO props are ex-Dragons...


Melbourne will win by 50 tomorrow.

Aye, it'll be a Stormy massacre tomorrow. A sad, sad day when the mighty Red and Whites score the spoon. Oh, and BTW, did you know our favourite forummer starting with Z (the Emporer) had incurred the wrath of the C4 Eds. [sigh] a little less humour and wit is not what this place needs.

I agree that the 2001 Australian team at The Oval would be much stronger if Fleming or MacGill were playing ahead of Lee.

The problem with the Steve Waugh era is that Brett Lee is in the team most of the time.

Anyway, how about this Lee-less team?

Australia v India at Mumbai 2001

Slater
Hayden
Langer
M Waugh
S Waugh (c)
Ponting (w/k)
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
Fleming
McGrath

It's probably better on paper than in reality.

- Ponting was clearly a passenger in India that tour.

- Warne was unfit and bowling pies (although he did return decent figures in this match).

My general feeling is that Australia's best ever XI probably featured Bradman - he really was that good.

Cheers.

I do feel for the Dragons.

The salary cap has bit them hard and most of the players they had to let go were juniors or players they developed.

Still, they'd probably have won the comp in the previous three years if Krusty the Clown wasn't their coach.

Cheers.

quote:

My general feeling is that Australia's best ever XI probably featured Bradman - he really was that good.

I noted above the team in DGBs last test. The only thing missing was a great spinner which I think is less of a loss than the pre-War Aust DGB teams who generally bereft of quicks.

I'd say that Australia's strongest batting side, or at least top six, played at the Oval in 1934.
It was Brown, Ponsford, Bradman, McCabe, Woodfull, Kippax.
Then followed Chipperfield, Oldfield, Grimmett, Ebeling, O'Reilly.

This is a couple of fast bowlers short of a magnificent team. But, as things stoodd, Ebeling was playing his sole Test and opened with McCabe, who must have been one of the least threatening of all opening bowlers who filled the role in more than one or two Tests. Chipperfield was not really more than a very useful bits and pieces all rounder.

Nonetheless, I'd be happy with this side to play for my life - and I'm not feling suicidal - in all conditions bar the sicky wicket which led to their sole defeat at Lords. Surely Grimmett and O'Reilly were as fine a bowling combination as any other.

quote:

Originally posted by Hass:
The problem with the Steve Waugh era is that Brett Lee is in the team most of the time.

The main problem with the Steve Waugh era is that Steve Waugh was the captain for most of the time.

quote:

Australia v India at Mumbai 2001

Slater
Hayden
Langer
M Waugh
S Waugh (c)
Ponting (w/k)
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
Fleming
McGrath

Why, when Gilchrist is in the team, is Punter the 'keeper?

quote:

Surely Grimmett and O'Reilly were as fine a bowling combination as any other.

They weren't so good 18 months earlier.