Cricinfo's All-time XI's

[War]

=/ Hayden was a flat-trick bully against seam bowling. He was a very good player of spin, but his performances against high quality seam in decks with anything in it for the bowler leave a lot to be desired (but let's not get into that, as it's a dire over-played argument).

It is indeed dire & overplayed. But i fear will have to get into my friend since if you & others still feel Hayden is a FTB & is questionable againts quality pace bowling, then you won't consider him for the AUS ATXI. Which is very wrong IMO.

But given i saw all of Hayden tests since 200 live, i strongly believe Hayden with these innings eradicated past demonds.

- Oval 2005 where he saved his career.

- Super test 2005

- Hundreds vs SA 05/06 with Ntini & Nel in top form on some difficult wickets

- MCG 2006 Ashes hundred vs Hoggard & Flintoff in what was coindentally the only bowler friendly deck in the 2006 Ashes.

- His MCG & SCG hundreds vs IND 07/08 vs Khan especially when the ball was moving around.

Hayden corrected his FTB faults of the "Mumbai 2001 to Cairns 2004" days with these innings. Which erase much doubts that if he had played in a past era of more consistent quality pace attacks that he would have been a 40+ average batsmen for sure. But not a 50+ average batsman IMO.

You worry about Trumper against world class seam bowling, but not for Hayden?

Trumper and Morris put up some seriously impressive numbers on uncovered wickets against some seriously good bowling in their respective times. From guys like SF Barnes, W Rhodes, GL Jessop, C Blythe, GA Faulkner, AEE Vogler and GH Hirst of Trumpers era to Bedser, Tayfield, Valentine, Laker, Tyson, Ramadhin, Statham and Bailey of Morris's.

Trumper never faced any 90 mph new-ball bowlers in his career remotely comparable in quality to the likes of Marshall, Trueman, Donald, Imran, Ambrose, Hadlee etc in his time. The 90 mph bowler in his time where the likes of JJ Kotze from South Africa, Charles Kortwright (who is rated very highly by John Arlott) & his Australian team-mate Tibby Cotter (who of course he didn't face in tests. He once bowlled a delivery that left a dent in a batsmans back :laugh) & Bill Luckwood (Luckwood's partner Richardson had already retired before Trumper debuted). But none of those weren't of the same quality of the post war quicks from 1948 to now.

The only fast bowler of the pre war 1900-1939 period who was on par with the post war 90 mph bowlers at any level was Larwood. While the only notable good all-round attack was the bodyline 1932 ENG attack of Larwood/Voce/Bowes/Verity. Gregory/McDonald from Australia was solid without being spectacular.

All of the bowlers you listed their where spinners & Barnes of course was great medium pacer. I respect what he did on uncovered wickets, but technically in All-Time XI hypotetical match-ups i would think uncovered wickets wouldn't be used though. The only positive things that batsmen of the pre-war era have going for them is that they probably where better at playing spinners that batsmen of the last 50 years (given that facing a spinner on wet-wicket is a bit more difficult that facing Murali, Kumble etc on a normal sub-continental dustbowl).

So overall yes i have alot of issue with starting Trumper in the AUS ATXI. His time was from a different world, so expecting him to do well againts some of the great 90 mph new-ball post war bolwers in these hypotetical match-ups is too much of a stretch for me. That as bad as picking WG Grace in England's All-time XI. No wayy..

Simpson, Hayden, Morris, Lawry definately should be ahead of Trumper in the pecking order as to who should open. While the likes of Taylor, Slater, Langer, McDonald could be argued either way

=/ Both magnificent players, that guys that played with them, or saw them bat rate incredibly highly. One other thing to point out about Arthur Morris is his record under Bradman, which clearly inspired him. Under The Don's leadership Morris averages 74.10, with 7 centuries in 14 Tests; even outscoring Bradman in the '48 Ashes, in a series performance only beaten in terms of run getting by Bradman and Mark Taylor. Trumper > Morris > Simpson > Hayden for me; based on what I've read, heard and seen

Looking at Morris as i mentioned to you before. Of his 12 test hundreds. Only one was a quality pace attack. Brisbane 1954. He scored as much hundreds againts joke attacks on roads like Hayden did in the 2000s. Plus Morris had his struggles in the 1953 Ashes too againts the great English attack - Bedser troubled him alot with the inswinger (stark similarities to Haydens struggles 52 years later in 2005 Ashes). But as i showed above Hayden (in his post Ashes 2005 -Trent Bridge test revival) scored more hundreds againts good attacks than Morris. Hayden has fair edge over Morris based on statistical evidence.

I dont always live on stats though. So Based on what i read, eye witness & video footage Morris was very technically sound batter & more pleasing to watch Hayden. Theirfore all being said i've always given Hayden the edge over Morris for these reasons.

 

[kirby]

Simpson, Hayden, Morris, Lawry definately should be ahead of Trumper in the pecking order as to who should open. While the likes of Taylor, Slater, Langer, McDonald could be argued either way

Surprised no one's going in to bat for Bill Ponsford. His appetite for big scores is by all accounts only surpassed by Bradman, and his stodginess at the top of the order is really something you want from an opener from whatever era.

 

[drainpipe32]

Anyone else reckon it's ridiculous Ponting and Waugh haven't been picked?

 

[TumTum]

Anyone else reckon it's ridiculous Ponting and Waugh haven't been picked?

Waugh isn't that good of a batsmen, choosing him for his captaincy is a bit stupid.

I would have picked Ponting ahead of Greg, but it could of gone either way.

 

[drainpipe32]

Yeah I suppose I'd have Chappell over Waugh, but Ponting definitely deserves in.

Saying Waugh wasn't that good of a batsman however...... :S

 

[kirby]

Yeah I suppose I'd have Chappell over Waugh, but Ponting definitely deserves in.

Saying Waugh wasn't that good of a batsman however...... :S

Waugh was a great batsman. Just consider that he averaged 50 after making his first Test hundred 5 years into his career.

I think the calls for Ponting to be in the side will be many more once he retires; it's difficult to see how much of an effect a player had until he's gone.

 

[King Pietersen]

Greg Chappell > Ponting and Waugh AFAIC.

 

[drainpipe32]

Didn't see much of Chappell of course.

 

[War]

Surprised no one's going in to bat for Bill Ponsford. His appetite for big scores is by all accounts only surpassed by Bradman, and his stodginess at the top of the order is really something you want from an opener from whatever era.

Like most pre-war batsmen, i have issue with picking Ponsford in these hypotetical All-time XI match-ups since he never faced much quality 90 mph new-ball bowling or overall quality pace-attacks in his career.

The only time he did in Bodyline 1932/33 he failed miserably. I have seen clips on the DVD "Story of the Ashes" of Ponsford backing away to square-leg facing Larwood in this seires & its bit cringewrothy to be frank.

The likes of Simpson, Hayden, Morris, Lawry, Langer, McDonald, Taylor & Slater should all be ahead of Ponsford in the pecking order for who should open in the AUS ATXI in my opinion.

 

[kirby]

Like most pre-war batsmen, i have issue with picking Ponsford in these hypotetical All-time XI match-ups since he never faced much quality 90 mph new-ball bowling or overall quality pace-attacks in his career.

The only time he did in Bodyline 1932/33 he failed miserably. I have seen clips on the DVD "Story of the Ashes" of Ponsford backing away to square-leg facing Larwood in this seires & its bit cringewrothy to be frank.

In fairness, Bradman backed away to Larwood (to score through the offside). And can you really be sure that bowlers of past eras weren't as fast as bowlers now. Admittedly there was an emphasis more on accuracy and movement rather than genuine pace back then compared to today, but it's a difficult thing to say bowlers weren't as fast.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

But I think it's unfair to count that against them, for a start, very few batsmen are troubled by out and out pace.

The best bowlers of the 2000s have probably been mcgrath and pollock, two of the slower ones.

The only express pace bowlers to make it under 30 with his bowling average are Akthar and Bond, could maybe include gillespie at a push.

but guys like Clark and Vaas took wickets at better averages than Harmison, Flintoff and Lee and the scores of west indian pacemen (a massively slowed down Walsh, has the best average for them in 00s) Even Pakistans best bowler is Asif who is much slower than the others.

So to suggest Trumper would have been troubled by meer pace is to dismiss his talent. India took apart Tait on a bouncey wicket because he was so inaccurate.

 

[Ahmad Shah]

i think ntini deserves more respect

 

[War]

In fairness, Bradman backed away to Larwood (to score through the offside).

How Bradman dealth with the bodyline attack was different though.

Bradman, because of the exceptional speed of his reflexes and his hand/eye coordination had an extra choice which was to back away and try and cut the ball through the huge vacant areas on the off side - that carried a huge risk of dismissal for obvious reasons but no risk of getting hit and that was the tactic Bradman adopted.

He wasn't going to go leg side (like McCabe famously did in the first Test) because of the injury risk and he wasn't going to keep out of the way because Bradman not getting out but not scoring runs was no good to Australia

Ponsford when i say he "backed away" based on clips i've seen (The DVD Story of the Ashes). He was basically either running to leg from larwood & Voce or was being repeatedly hit by them. He looked awful.

And can you really be sure that bowlers of past eras weren't as fast as bowlers now. Admittedly there was an emphasis more on accuracy and movement rather than genuine pace back then compared to today, but it's a difficult thing to say bowlers weren't as fast.

Post war you definately had more 90 mph bowlers than pre war (1900-9139) without a doubt that played test. Plus they where clearly of a higher quality. To avoid repeating myself this i what i said above regarding the matter:

The 90 mph bowler in his time where the likes of JJ Kotze from South Africa, Charles Kortwright (who is rated very highly by John Arlott) & his Australian team-mate Tibby Cotter (who of course he didn't face in tests. He once bowlled a delivery that left a dent in a batsmans back ) & Bill Luckwood (Luckwood's partner Richardson had already retired before Trumper debuted). But none of those weren't of the same quality of the post war quicks from 1948 to now.

The only fast bowler of the pre war 1900-1939 period who was on par with the post war 90 mph bowlers at any level was Larwood. While the only notable good all-round attack was the bodyline 1932 ENG attack of Larwood/Voce/Bowes/Verity. Gregory/McDonald from Australia was solid without being spectacular.

Thats not remotely comparable to the quality of fast-bowlers/90 mph from Ray Lindwall to Dale Steyn, that have been consistently present from 1948 to now (2010).