Naming the greatest cricket team of all time is as old a debate as the game itself. But when it comes to Australian cricket, just one XI sells our history of producing great cricketers short.
Having unveiled my fourth and fifth-greatest Australian cricket XIs yesterday, today we get two teams closer to the peak, and remember some absolute legends of the game along the way.
The third-greatest Australian cricket XI
1. Mark Taylor (c)
2. Bill Woodfull (vc)
3. Stan McCabe
4. Michael Clarke
5. Michael Hussey
6. Doug Walters
7. Hugh Trumble
8. Rodney Marsh (wk)
9. Mitchell Johnson
10. Graham McKenzie
11. Jeff Thomson
12th man: Alan Fairfax
Mark Taylor was an easy selection here – I considered for my first side. His partner was more difficult, as we’re now into the second rung of great Australian opening batsmen. Was Woodfull better than Bill Brown? Woodfull had to bat during the infamous Bodyline series – I wonder how that affected his batting average? I have him ahead of Brown for that reason.
McCabe was an easy selection, no other number three stood out. McCabe is legendary for scoring the two most heroic centuries in Australian cricket history – even Donald Bradman acknowledged he never played an innings like McCabe once did.
It felt weird picking Clarke and Hussey, as they’re both so recent! I don’t quite rate Clarke as highly as the great batsman of, say, the 2000 side – Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist, etc.
Hussey started late and really should have played in the 2005 Ashes. I rate him just higher than Clarke.
Doug Walters stood out as the second best Australian batsman of his time, after Greg Chappell.
Hugh Trumble makes the side for being Australia’s greatest ever finger-spinner.
Rodney Marsh kept to Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson – a hard task indeed! “Caught Marsh, bowled Lillee” is now part of the Australian vernacular.
Mitchell Johnson wouldn’t have been close to my top 50 but for his amazing purple patch during the 2013-14 Ashes series, and the subsequent tour to South Africa. That period of bowling compares to the peak of any other Australian bowler. I rate Johnson higher than say, Breet Lee, because of that series.
I used to be a Johnson hater, actually. I didn’t want him in the side prior to the 2013-14 series. But most Aussies would want Thomson somewhere in their top three sides, what did Thomson do during his short peak that Johnson didn’t?
Could you imagine Johnson bowling in tandem with Thomson? Can you imagine Thomson of the 1974-75 Ashes and the 1975-76 West Indian series paired with Johnson of the 2013-14 Ashes and the 2014 South African series? Much like Johnson, Thomson made this side because of a relatively short peak, not for a long career of consistent quality bowling.
Graham McKenzie stands out as a solid bowler over a much longer period of time than either Thomson or Johnson.
The second-greatest Australian cricket XI
1. Bill Ponsford
2. Victor Trumper
3. Neil Harvey
4. Steve Waugh
5. Alan Border (vc)
6. Richie Benaud (c)
7. Alan Davidson
8. Ian Healey (wk)
9. Clarrie Grimmett
10. Charlie Turner
11. Frederick Spofforth
12th man: Craig McDermott
Ponsford was the closest player not to make my first side, so he’s an easy selection. I chose Trumper because of what he meant in terms of changing the art of batting. I also think if more cricket was played during his era, his batting average would be higher.
The middle order for this side was a bit of a mess. Neither Harvey, Waugh, or Border were number three batsman – Stan McCabe would have perfect for this side. Yet when considering the second-greatest Australian batsman ever, five names stood out: Chappell, Ponting, Waugh, Border and Harvey (Gilchrist should be considered too). McCabe doesn’t stand out like Harvey, but Waugh and Border did – so they comprise my middle order.
Healey was probably Australia’s greatest ever wicket keeper, and kept to Shane Warne better than anybody at international level.
Originally I intended to drop either Benaud or Davidson to better balance the side. I have heard Benaud and Davidson being described as all-rounders before – Benaud having scored more than 2000 runs and taken more than 200 wickets. But in reality, both were like bowling all-rounders. Davidson has a bowling average of 20! When I dropped either, it felt like they dropped too low for what they achieved.
Ian Chappell regards Benaud and Imran Kahn as the two best cricket captains he ever saw – so Benaud is my captain. Border, who is the best captain I ever saw and brought Australia out of a slump in the mid-80s, is the vice-captain.
Like my first side – mindful that Davidson, Turner and Spofforth were all excellent bowlers – I’ve select two spinners (Benaud and Grimmett). Grimmett is generally classified as one of Australia’s three greatest spinners, with Warne and O’Reilly.
Spofforth has an amazing place in the history of Ashes cricket that assures his status as a cricket legend, warranting such high selection.
Craig McDermott is simply underrated. For such a long time he had to carry the Australian bowling attack with little help. I rate McDermott and Jason Gillespie as Australia’s two most underrated cricketers ever.
Craig Swanson
Guest
McGrath was Australia's lynchpin, along with Shane Warne, during our world record 16 straight test match run. So how can anyone say he should be discarded for a faster bowler. Pigeon was the perfect foil for the express Brett Lee and the slightly slower Jason Gillespie in that great attack. Every attack needs a McGrath like bowler. They are like gold. While he is building pressure from one end the other bowler is taking the wicket. Luckily he bowled for us and not the enemy.
Craig Swanson
Guest
Where is your first side? Who did you have in place of Ponsford?
JGK
Roar Guru
McGrath's record against great batsman is probably unparalleled in the history of cricket. A faint edge to the keeper is just as out as a late inswinger yorker at 95mph that takes out leg stump.
JGK
Roar Guru
Missed this article. It's Allan Border, not Alan by the way. And Healy only has one "e". And if I understand your rankings, are you really saying that Alan Fairfax, 10 Tests, top score of 65, is better than M Waugh, Martyn, Hasset, I Chappell, Jones, Boon and Simmo?
Andy
Guest
I think another cross against McGrath being in the best XI is that im assuming you are imagining the opposition to be Englands best XI, West Indies best XI, Indias, South Africas best XI etc in which case having a bowler like McGrath who gets bowlers out by being boring wouldnt do as good a job as a scary fast i will knock you out with my bowling bowler. The greats batsman, especially when they know they have 5-6 other of the greatest batsman ever in their team along with knowing their bowlers are top tier too are less inclined to make mistakes so you would want a bowler who will get the guy out rather than the batsman getting themself out which is more what McGrath did. He is still a great but McGraths strength was his metronomic accuracy whch i just dont think would play as well against great batsman who had the back up of other great batsman.
Andy
Guest
Williamson or Root at number 1? Or AB i suppose too.
Ragav
Guest
Wonderfully put. Very true that all the nostalgia is colouring everybody's views.
The Magic Man
Roar Rookie
People reduce the stats of Hayden label him a flat track bully in an era of batting dominance ... then the same people rubbish McGrath as over rated and again take no stock in his stats. Strewth you can't have it both ways. That McGrath has his kind of record in an era of bigger batting averages tells me that he's either our greatest ever fast man or equal to any other. Then people bag out his style. Please. Cricket has always been a numbers game and McGrath had everyone's number. All this glamour of the 70s... looking back as some rarefied era... It's no better than any other. Today's players have to be not only adept at playing in the UK and Australia, but now there's the entire subcontinent and Africa to contend with in a much more professional era. I'd like to know the great DKs record on the subcontinent.
Frank O'Keeffe
Guest
I'm kind of in the "McGrath is a tad overrated" camp myself. I've never been a huge stats fan, and most of all in cricket of all sports. I remember trying to explain to someone that you shouldn't compare Lillee to McGrath, and that Lillee was clearly better. Reference was made to McGrath's superior bowling average, his marginally better strike-rate, and his success against Lara and Tendulkar. McGrath trumps Lillee statistically in just about everything. But just about everybody who saw Lillee in his day said he was the best fast bowler of all time - Bradman, Hadlee, Botham, Chappell - and if I was forced to, I could like the whole hoard of other people who say he's the standard of fast-bowling excellence. One day there may be a fast bowler better than Lillee - but Lillee is the ideal fast-bowler. Speed, intimidation, control of seam and wing, the ability to take the new and old ball, the action, the stiff knee, the rock-back - everything and more!
sheek
Roar Guru
Frank, If you haven't already found this site, do yourself a favour & check it out immediately - www.howstat.com/. Once you log onto 'howstat' I promise you, it will change your cricket knowledge for the better. I have found it enormously helpful in separating batsmen or bowlers that previously I had trouble doing. It's a treasure trove of info for the cricket lover. Just log in & go exploring.....
sheek
Roar Guru
Jeff, I'm inclined to agree with you. Great bowler that he was, McGrath was kinda boring. But I guess that's how he got batsmen out, he bored them to death with his metronome accurate length! James, Every team needs an anchor, which is why I will always go with Border as my first anchor, followed By S.Waugh as the alternate. But it's difficult to omit the Punter.
Jameswm
Guest
I'd have Ponting ahead of Border. And I think it's a choice of two of Lindwall and the 2 leggies depending on conditions. As for openers, I couldn't comment. Hayden is the only one I've seen. Other than that agreed. Lillee, McGrath, Miller and possibly Lindwall - what a pace bowling attack.
Jeffrey Dun
Roar Rookie
Sheek - that would be my side also, except I would have Davidson for McGrath. They were both great bowlers, but Davo was a left-hander, which adds variety, and a better all round cricketer.
sheek
Roar Guru
Frank, In 2009, ESPN Cricinfo selected the following all-time Australian XI: Victor Trumper, Arthur Morris, Don Bradman (c), Greg Chappell, Allan Border, Keith Miller, Adam Gilchrist (wk), Shane Warne, Dennis Lillee, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn McGrath. Ricky Ponting,12th man. Cricinfo readers (not necessarily Ausises) then dumped all the specialist batsmen bar Bradman, replacing them with Matt Hayden, Bill Ponsford, Ricky Ponting & Steve Waugh. I would back the Cricinfo specialist writers over the readers on this one!
sheek
Roar Guru
Frank, I don't think you have made a mistake by omitting Barnes. He only played 13 tests, which really isn't enough to give an honest account of his true ability. Jeff, Yes, Derriman's formula is flawed when Miller doesn't make his best XI. I think he had refined it when he wrote a series of SMH articles leading into the selection of the 'team of the century' in 2000, by the then ACB. For the record, the team was: Ponsford, Morris, Bradman (c), Harvey, G.Chappell, Miller (vc), Healy (wk), Lindwall, Warne, Lillee, O'Reilly with Border, 12th man. SMH readers made three changes - Trumper replaced Ponsford, Tallon replaced Healy, while Border came into the XI for spinner O'Reilly & S.Waugh was named 12th man. I think Derriman refined his formula during 1999/2000, by concentrating on what he called a player's 'peak period of performance'. Basically, he might lop off the beginning & ending of player's careers, & concentrate on the middle, which is often a player's most productive period. The phrase, "A champion in one era is a champion in any era" was I believe originally coined by Bradman himself. I like it & it is a very informative way to cross-compare players from different eras.
Prosenjit
Guest
It'll sound over the top to many but i agree with peter z.warner > hayden.
Frank O'Keeffe
Guest
Derriman wrote the third best Australian rugby union book - The Rise and Rise of Australian Rugby. Maybe if I had that book, I could have done a better job than I did - for example, I didn't put Barnes in my top 50. But I'm not liking that side! I rate the four greatest Australian cricketers as: 1. Bradman; 2. Warne; 3. Lillee; 4. Miller. After that, ranking the top 10 becomes hard. But I've always been happy with that top four, since Warne's retirement. I had Lillee ahead of Warne before Warne came back from suspension. But then Warne took 26 wickets in his comeback tour to Sri Lanka. Then he became the all-time wicket-taker. Then he took 40 wickets against England in 2005. Then he broke Lillee's record for most wickets in a year. Then he passed 700 wickets. It was all just too much. I'm sorry, but Warne has to be there for the massive impact he had on cricket. Warne's also better than the stats reveal to us. Keith Miller is definitely Australia's greatest all-rounder, and should be in there. I can live with Harvey in there. Chappell is our second best batsman after Bradman. I don't like the openers in this side. However, I do confess to underrating both those men in the sides I've selected. I must get that book.
Jeffrey Dun
Roar Rookie
Yes, Derriman’s approach was to assume that a champion in one era would have been a champion in any era. On this basis he set out to identify the champions of each era by comparing players with their contemporaries. This approach avoided the need to compare players who played in different eras eg, there is no need to compare say, Trumper with Haydn. He asked Ross Dundas to devise a formula for batsmen and bowlers. For each batsmen Dundas calculated the percentage of their team’s runs they scored in their test innings. For bowlers he devised a complicated formula that rated each bowler by the efficiency with which they took wickets, relative to the balls they bowled and the runs they had scored off them. On this basis Derriman came up with this XI: 1877 – 1988 Bob Simpson Sid Barnes Don Bradman Neil Harvey Greg Chappell Alan Davidson Don Tallon (no formula used here, he just asked old timers who was the best keeper they had seen) Dennis Lillee Clarrie Grimmet Fred Spofforth Bill O’Reilly The only problem I have with Derriman’s approach is that it devalues the category of all rounder, by considering them as a specialist batsmen and a specialist bowler. If they don’t get a gig for one, they don’t get in the team. Personally, I would have Miller in my all time XI in a hear-beat.
sheek
Roar Guru
Hayden went to England in 1993 as the preferred opening partner to Taylor. He failed in the one-dayers & Slater was given his chance in the first test, which he gleefully grabbed. Hayden then made his test debut in 1994 against South Africa as a last-minute call-up for an ill Taylor. He failed again. Up until 2000, Hayden didn't look as if he was going to have a long & prosperous test career. But then, against India in 2001, things fell into place for him as he hit both a double & single century. One thing about Hayden is that this perception has stayed with him of being a flat track bully. But give the guy credit, he persevered & persevered, to the point where he became one of Australian cricket's greatest openers. Whichever way you want to cut it, he is among the 5-6 best openers Australia has ever produced. Hayden has the runs on the board. To join or pass him, Warner has to continue making a ton of runs. Far too early to call on Warner.
sheek
Roar Guru
That's okay, have done it myself in the past. On one occasion I think I famously omitted Border!