By Kersi Meher-Homji
September 22nd 2009 @ 1:06am
Related coverage
Short history of foreign-born Australian Test cricketers
Am I the only person writing on Test cricket these days? After seven One-Day Internationals in England, the ICC Champions Trophy starts the South Africa today, then the Airtel Champions Twenty20 in India starts on October 8, followed by more Fifty50 ODIs between Australia and India in India.
Test matches will recommence in November.
But to keep the fires of Test cricket burning, here is the third post on the series of overseas-born Test cricketers. This time the focus is on Australian Test players.
Six of Australia’s Test team which played against England in the inaugural Test in Melbourne in March 1877 were born overseas.
They were: Charles Bannerman, John Hodges, Tom Kendall and William Midwinter in England, Tom Horan in Ireland and Bransby Cooper in India.
Since then, fourteen more foreign-born cricketers have represented Australia in Test cricket.
Below are listed twenty Australian Test cricketers who were born overseas.
ENGLAND (10): Charles Bannerman, John Hodges, Tom Kendall, William Midwinter, Percy McDonnell, William Cooper, Henry Musgrove, Hanson Carter, Tony Dell and Andrew Symonds.
SCOTLAND (1): Archie Jackson.
IRELAND (2): Tom Horan, Tom Kelly.
SOUTH AFRICA (1): Kepler Wessels.
NEW ZEALAND (3): Tom Groube, Clarrie Grimmett and Brendon Julian.
INDIA (2): Bransby Cooper and Rex Sellers.
SRI LANKA (1): Dav Whatmore.
Have I missed anyone out? Over to you, Roarers!
Note:
Charles Bannerman played the first ball in Test cricket on 15 March 1877, scored the first run (off the second ball) and went on to record the first Test century.
His domination in that innings (165 out of Australia’s total of 245, which works out at 67.35 percent) remains a Test record, even after 133 years! Beware the Ides of March, the England team must have commented.
William Cooper was Paul Sheahan’s great grandfather. Sheahan, noted for his brilliant fielding, played 31 Tests for Australia. They provide the only instance of a great grandfather and a great grandson playing Test cricket.
Archie Jackson, a contemporary of Don Bradman, was an elegant batsman but died aged 23. While lying in hospital on what was to be his death-bed he got married.
Knowledgeable critics opined that Jackson was as talented as Bradman and as elegant as Vic Trumper. What a tragedy that he died so young!
Kepler Wessels later played for South Africa.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(32)
vinay said | September 22nd 2009 @ 6:43am | Report comment
Kersi…It is refreshing you are writing about Test Cricket. Unfortunately, there is so much apathy in our world that people only miss something when they have lost it.
Twenty/20 is like formula milk, easy to make but harder to digest. It has its uses but is no substitute for fresh homemade soup.It takes longer but the taste remains long after you have eaten it. Who remembers the man of the Match in the Lords ODI?
Keep the flame burning,Kersi and Scarlett’s Ghost will look after you.
vinay verma said | September 22nd 2009 @ 7:23am | Report comment
Kersi..dont be deterred. The MCC is resurrecting the Championship of Test Cricket. Martin Crowe has come up with something more edifying than his stillborn Cricket max. We also have emminent cricketers like Mark Taylor,Rahul Dravid and Sangakkara on the ICC Cricket committee. All men with a reverence for the traditions of cricket.
Twenty/20 is for those parents who are happy to feed their babies milk and food based on Laboratary formulae. The parents who have no time to take their kids to cricket because it takes too long. Presumably these same parents have time to watch reruns of Days of our Lives.
The only picnic some kids will see is the MacDonalds drivethrough.The XBox is their backyard cricket and their Hero is David Warner.
Give me Benaud,Davidson,Chapelli,Dougy,Dravid and Warney any day. Those that know not what has gone before know not cricket.
Dave said | September 22nd 2009 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
you must have hated it twenty years ago when all the kids were wearing all baseball hats and everybody was saying Basketball was going to take over
spiro said | September 22nd 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
It’s inevitable that the players not born in Australia should feature in the early teams. I think it was towards the end of the 19th century that there were more Australians born in Australian than out of it.
The intriquing aspect of the Australian Test side over the decades is the extremely low number of Test caps that have been awarded, some 400 or so, I believe.
Kersi will know this. But how does this compare with England and, say, South Africa, in the caps-Tests equation?
Brett McKay said | September 22nd 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Great stuff Kersi – I didn’t know Brendan Julian was born in New Zealand. Perhaps that explains his mediocre medium pace!! (I kid..)
And yes, you might be the only Roarer on cricket currently, but I think it’s got more to do with everyone being a little cricketed out, rather than declining interst. In my case, after proof-reading 8 or 10 straight cricket articles and columns, it was my wife that suggested/requested a change of topic!!
Brett McKay said | September 22nd 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Spiro, I can answer it to a degree – Phillip Hughes has Baggy Green no.408, Marcus North 409, and Ben Hilfenhaus 410 whereas England’s numbers are now well into the 600s. For some reason, 644 rings a bell for Johnathan Trott.
South Africa’s number I’d imagine would be lower, given the 30-odd year banishment from Test Cricket. Also, I believe they’ve restarted their numbering since reinception, although that could also just be for ODIs..
Chop said | September 22nd 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Kersi,
Someone has to keep the test cricket fires burning. Good stuff
Brett,
Give Brendan some credit, it was mediocre fast-medium….
Kersi Meher-Homji said | September 22nd 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Welcome back, Vinay, thanks for your reassuring comments on Test survival. Someone has to produce a cricket chronicle exclusively for Test cricket.
Spiro and Brett,
Going by Wisden 2009, Test caps for each country are listed below (as at 7 January, 2009):
England 641 players, Australia 406, South Africa 302, West Indies 272, New Zealand 242, India 260, Pakistan 190, Sri Lanka 110, Zimbabwe 74 and Bangladesh 54. I’ll update the list as at October 2009 and report on it later on. Brett, the numbers you have given for Australia and England appear spot on. Fourteen cricketers have appeared for two countries.
Fewer Australians have played Test matches than for England is because Australia has played 705 Tests as against 879 played by England (both as at 7/1/09). Also in general, Australian selectors do not chop and change as much as their English counterparts do.
And don’t run down Brendon Julian, Brett. Many women watch cricket on TV just to see Brendon’s smiling face — going ooh and aah!!
Freud of Football said | September 22nd 2009 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
Going by Wiki England made Jonathon Trott (the South African) their 645th capped test cricketer, South Africa has had 304 capped players and the Windies 280, not saying that is more reliable but I can’t be bothered seeing where the discrepancy lies, further I should probably do some work today! If you have time Kersi, let us know, could be interesting.
Brett McKay said | September 22nd 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Quite true Kersi, and England also have a lot more one-Test players than does Australia. When I selected my Ashes one-Test wonders back before the Ashes series, the pool of players was something like 50 for Asutralia, and more than 80 for England, and these are guys who played one Ashes Test only.
And I do kid about Brendan Julian, on his day he was a very handy cricketer, it’s just internationally at least, that “day” was a Thursday. And during his short stint on Getaway, just as many women tuned in for him as did blokes for Catriona Rowntree
vinay verma said | September 22nd 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Kersi…for your info visit http//:www.seriouslycricketchronicles.com…subscription based Chronicles from writers that know their tradition and are concious of the bigger picture. You will be pleasantly surprised. First edition is early next month.
Greg Russell said | September 22nd 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
“Have I missed anyone out?”
Kersi, you missed out Damien Martyn, who was born in the Northern Territory (Darwin). Just joking.
As of 2007, Marto and NZ’s Mathew Sinclair (Katherine) were the only two test cricketers born in the NT (see http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/287834.html).
I have something nagging in the back of my mind that I recently noticed a new international cricketer born there, but I can’t confirm this.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | September 22nd 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
You gave me a scare, Greg, till I read further!!
Rajesh Kumar, my friend from India and a respected cricket statistician, confirms that my list of overseas-born Australian Test cricketers is complete.
Spiro and Brett,
Here is the complete and updated list of Test caps:
England 645, Australia 411, South Africa 304, West Indies 280, New Zealand 243, India 260, Pakistan 196, Sri Lanka 112, Zimbabwe 74, Bangladesh 56. Thank you, Rajesh for the confirmation.
Brett McKay said | September 22nd 2009 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
well played Kersi, I wasn’t too far off with my guess on Johnathan Trott’s number after all…
Also, if I my self-correct (becuase I’ve thought about this a little closer), Australia awards Test numbers in alphabetical order where more than one player debuts in the same Test (not batting order as Michael Slater infamously found out), so Hilfenhaus is actually 407, Hughes 408, North 409, Bryce McGain 410, and Graham Manou is No.411.
Greg Russell said | September 22nd 2009 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
Kersi, there’s a special word for the study of baseball statistics: sabermetrics (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabermetrics). I have always thought that cricket also deserves to have a dedicated word for this. Ask your friend Rajesh what his suggestion is. There has to be a better word than “tragics”!
vinay verma said | September 22nd 2009 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
Greg…Weeping Willows sounds better than “tragics”
Rajesh Kumar said | September 22nd 2009 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
Outstanding and Interesting stuff indeed. Well done!
Kersi Meher-Homji said | September 22nd 2009 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
Greg,
How about runwickmetrics for study of cricket statistics?
Freud of Football said | September 22nd 2009 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
Having played a lot of baseball and being frustrated that I was never as talented at cricket as I was on the baseball field I think I’m in a position to make a somewhat educated comment on this.
I think basbeall statistics are a bit different than crickets stats, for starters baseballers play a 162 game season (MLB), plus play-off series compared with what, 10-14 Tests a year, maybe 20-30 ODI’s and I dunno how many T20’s.
Statistics generally have a lot bigger meaning in baseball. In cricket they can be misleading, take Bradman’s average for example. 99.94 is Superhuman, the kind of thing you manage only in a video game and there is no doubt to the man’s talent but he batted in 80 innings, Ponting for example has batted 229 and over time these things are simply bound to sink but Ponting’s average of 55.58 says a lot. Stats in cricket can be misleading because of this fact whereas in baseball they are generally over a longer period of time also technology hasn’t made great improvements to the game (bats are improved but not the extent of those in cricket) and the rules are more-or-less the same.
Further their importance comes from the two different leagues, American and National. Pinch-Hitters for example take the place of the pitcher in the batting lineup, as their only purpose is to be a good batter the team average is inflated whereas in the National league, pitchers (who are generally poor batters) are forced to bat and often only average .150-.200 .
It is these sort of differences between two leagues that compete with each other which make stats so interesting in baseball, it’s not a c. Marsh b. Lillee type of statistical game, it’s a fly to second with a runner at first and two down bottom of the 7th, this sort of thing, the game situation is just as important and moreso than in cricket and yeah sure they have a wagon wheel but that can’t tell you much, they often are representative of the bowling rather than the batting.
Stats are nice, we just shouldn’t read into them so much. Is Rahul Dravid even in the same class as Mark Waugh or Jonty Rhodes when it comes to fielding? I think not but he holds the record for most test catches. As I said, they are often misleading because of the “relatively” small data pool used for the stats and last but not least, the discrepancy between the quality of the teams. When hayden held the world record for the highest score in test cricket of 380 we weren’t considering it was better than Bradman’s 334 or Taylor’s 334* simply because it was against Zimbabwe on a batsman’s paradise but stats don’t take things like this into account.
Greg Russell said | September 23rd 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
FoF: And the point of your comment is? I’m not aware of any suggestions that baseball and cricket statistics are the same, nor that cricket statistics are more important.
Two little points:
1. My understanding is that (professional) sports statisticians do recognize Bradman’s batting average as statistically genuine rather than being artefactual. There would not be many areas of endeavour where 80 (his number of innings) is considered too small a sample space.
2. Funny you should mention the catching of Dravid. (a) Catching is only a part of fielding, so let’s not take catching ability as an index of general fielding ability. No-one would suggest that because of Dravid’s catching record he is a better fielder than Jonty. But one can sustain an argument that he has become a better catcher. (b) A major but almost-never-stated reason for recent Indian supremacy over Australia in test cricket is slips catching. Put that down to Dravid, who has barely dropped a catch in recent series between the teams, whereas the Australians have shelled plenty in the slips. Who would ever have thought that Indians would catch better than Australians? But it has been the case. Dravid has worked really hard at his slips catching and has become arguably the best slipper in the world.
Dave said | September 23rd 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
in that 80 innings Bradman scored 6996 runs. No one who has score over 5000 runs has an average that comes close.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/223646.html
Freud of Football said | September 23rd 2009 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
My point is Greg that there is no need to dedicate a science to the study of cricket stats because they are nowhere near as important or comprehensive as those in baseball.
At Point 1) You may consider his 80 innings a long enough space to make a clear statistical case for his average, in cricketing terms (in particular in Bradman’s time when less cricket was played) it probably is enough however as Australian’s we often overlook two important factors.
A) Bradman played part of his career during the timeless tests era. Ponting could probably average a hundred today if tests were timeless but he has to adjust to game situation, bat for the team etc, not time. Time isn’t generally made up for rain delays etc so if Ponting (or perhaps Kallis, Tendulkar, Lara, which ever great batsman of the modern era you want) batted without time constraints he could build his innings and would inevitably bump his average up.
B) Cricket has moved on since Bradman’s day. Unfortunately there were no radar guns in the 30’s to tell us how fast Larwood is but inevitably with all the coaching etc modern bowlers would be quicker and hence more difficult to face.
Sure you can argue its easier for modern cricketers with the invention of helmets and playing on flatter pitches but oppositions are far better prepared today, physically, mentally and tactically. Field settings were hardly inventive in Bradman’s day and it was still very much a Gentleman’s game back then (probably until Bodyline), I believe the lack of preparation (in comparison with modern day cricket) would certainly have aided Bradman in bumping up his scores and overall average.
Last but not least. I don’t think anybody on the Roar has seen Bradman play live but from all the clips I’ve seen of him, he hit EVERYTHING on the ground. I had a book with his career stats and I seem to remember there weren’t many catches other than by the keeper.
At Point 2)
Catching isn’t the only part of fielding but “catches win matches”, it’s not often that a test match is drastically effected by runouts or poor fielding, it’s dropped catches that change games.
I certainly would put Ponting above Dravid in the slips but it seems gone are the days of the genuinely good slippers, Taylor, M Waugh etc. and while Dravid is very good, he won’t be an all time great but you’re right, people don’t give enough credence to India’s fielding which has improved and Australia’s which has over time gotten worse.
I’d be interested to know how many if any of Dravid’s catches where as a Keeper in Test-cricket. I know he’s pulled on the gloves in ODI’s but I’m not sure about tests. Kensi, there’s something for you to research
Dave said | September 24th 2009 @ 7:33pm | Report comment
This is relevant to a previous article
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/07/30/will-cricket-copy-baseball/
Kersi Meher-Homji said | September 22nd 2009 @ 7:14pm | Report comment
Freud of Football,
You are correct about your cap figures. In the morning I had given cap numbers as at 7/1/2009.
In the afternoon I gave figures as at now. (See my comment). Here is repeated the updated list:
Spiro and Brett,
Here is the complete and updated list of Test caps:
England 645, Australia 411, South Africa 304, West Indies 280, New Zealand 243, India 260, Pakistan 196, Sri Lanka 112, Zimbabwe 74, Bangladesh 56. Thank you, Rajesh for the confirmation.
Enter the text shown:
Greg Russell said | September 23rd 2009 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
Kersi, now divide the cap numbers by the total number of tests that country (grouping in WI’s case) has played. That gives some idea of whose selections policies are the most “stable”, which I think was Brett’s original point (his hypothesis is, I think, that English selectors are more trigger-happy than Australia’s).
Of course (number of test players)/(total number of tests played) will be an average over histories throughout which all has not been equal. For example, in the era of 10-15 tests per year, there should not be the need to select as many new players as when there was 0-5 per year. But the ratio should certainly give a decent indication of selection policies in the case of Australia vs England.
Freud of Football said | September 23rd 2009 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
A good point Greg and it shows England’s biggest problem, they don’t stick with players and they are too willing to rotate giving players who aren’t up to scratch a chance just because they do well for their county in a purple patch.
Australia on the other hand is the polar opposite often affording established players too much time in the team when they hit a spot of poor form (anyone Remember Taylor not scoring a run for about a year?). The Windies stats are inflated due to contract negotiation problems and the South Africans should have played more test cricket
Rowdy said | September 24th 2009 @ 1:08am | Report comment
Part of the problem with England, I think, is that there are lots of players to choose from, so if one isn’t performing, there may be another to be plucked out of the CC. Another is that the selectors seem to pick purely on CC performance, regardless of technique – we’ve had a couple of shocking batsmen in recent years who could score rns at CC level but got quickly found out a level up.
Freud of Football said | September 24th 2009 @ 1:23am | Report comment
There are a lot of players to pick from but that isn’t a problem, the problem is they think anyone in a purple patch in county cricket is good enough for Test Match Cricket – It’s simply not true.
As we’ve seen with India in the past, simply having a large pool of players doesn’t make you world champions, New Zealand for a country with 4.3 residents does particularly well compared to India’s one billion especially considering that in NZ cricket has to compete with rugby while in India it iis by far the largest sport.
County Cricket, in my opinion isn’t as high in quality as Australian Domestic cricket, that’s probably why Australian’s who perform well at state level do better in the national side than english players coming in from County Cricket, the quality is simply higher.
Last but not least and I can’t say I have first hand experience of it but I know in India, pressure from the districts is large as they put their own interests first, trying to get their best players in the national team. It is too an extent like that in Aus (Darren Lehmann being a good example although that was as much his arguements with the board) where NSW rightly or wrongly get the most players selected and to some extent surely the counties flex their muscles and perhaps they just have too much influence, trying to get their players picked to represent England.
Dave1 said | November 12th 2009 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
With increased professionalism New Zealand has found it harder to keep up in test cricket because of its small population and India has improved a lot.
slidepass said | October 19th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
has cricket ever actually had a non anglo person play for the national team, or is there a white australia policy. i mean this in the sense that the aus demographic is so ethnically diverse but i cant think of a single person with a non-anglo background that plays it here for the NT
Dave1 said | October 19th 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
since Sam Morris was the first black test cricket when he played for Australia in 1884-85?
http://www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6647.html
Who knows because who decides whose non Anglo?….whatever that means
And who knows what its like in NT because you’re the one deciding what a so called non Anglo is
Dave1 said | October 19th 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment