Short history of foreign-born Australian Test cricketers

Can now add at least 4 more. Usman Kwawaja - Pakistan Steve O'Keefe - Malaysia Matt Renshaw - England Hilton Cartwright- Zimbabwe

I cannot accept the assertion here that Bradman's average was inflated by the timeless test era. The first timeless test was the 5th Ashes test at The Oval in 1926. The four previous tests of the series had resulted in draws and it was agreed that the fifth would be played until a result had been achieved. This avoided a drawn test series. Interestingly, England won the test in 4 days. Only 3 more timeless tests were played on English soil, all in Ashes test series in 1930 (6 days), 1934 (4days) and 1938 (4 days) all the 5th test of the series. The last timeless test was played in Durban Sth Africa in 1939 between Sth Africa and England and lasted 9 days, the longest test in history. England also played a timeless test against West Indies in Jamaica that lasted eight days. I can only assume that these series were tied when these timeless tests were played as there are no other examples of timeless tests being played by Sth Africa and West Indies. Interestingly both these tests ended in a draw. On both occasions England were in a good position to win if another day had been played, however on both occasions the last boat home was leaving and they abandoned the matches. An additional 25 timeless tests were played all in Australia and included the Ashes series of 28-29, 32-33 and 36-37; the West Indies tour of 30-31 and the Sth Africa tour of 31-32. Clearly Australia liked the idea of a result in every test match thus all home tests being timeless. No other country appears to have adopted them, although Australia appears to have convinced England to adopt them, if only for the last test of an ashes series. Of the 31 timeless tests played the longest lasted 9 days, the shortest lasted 2 days and they averaged 5.06 days overall. One day more than the standard at the time. Australia played in 29, longest 8 days, shortest 2 days , average 4.83 days. Bradman played in 26 at an average of 4.65 days. These figures suggest that timeless tests would not have had a great affect on Bradman's ability to score. Having read a little bit about Bradman, I was surprised at the speed with which he scored his runs. That and his ability for prolific run scoring is why his peers put him on a pedestal.

I believe Nasser Hussein was born in Madras now Chennai in India.

Usman Kawaja was born in Islamabad

Vivek, the original article was written several years ago and also doesn't include Usman Khawaja, born in what is now Pakistan.

you missed out moises henriques he was born in Portugal

Couldn't Bransby Cooper in a strange twist be called the first Bangladeshi player to play Test Cricket as Dacca (as Dhaka) is now part of Bangladesh ?

No, I did notforget Andrew Symonds, Rod Shaw. Part of my post is pasted below: 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. But I am pleased, Rod, that someone read my story 11 months after being posted.

Kersi forgot to include Andrew Symonds in his list of foreign born players that have represented Australia.He was born in Birmingham,England and was eligible to play for England.

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.

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

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

This is relevant to a previous article http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/07/30/will-cricket-copy-baseball/

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.

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.

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

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 :)

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

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.