Who would be in Australia's top Test cricket side in the last 25 years?

Greg Mathews only performed on the subcontinent.. Averaged 50 with the bat and 30 with the ball. Could not buy a wicket elsewhere.

The problem with Taylor he can only field in one position, and while he was a great slips fielder and shaded the other portly big men in Kallis,Brian McMillian and Inzuman , he hasn;t get the ability to cover ground like the truly great slips fielders. Stephen Fleming has a better record than Taylor catching wise, thats obviously because as a lighter guy he could fly through the air easier and he played in a team that did not take as many wickets. By picking Taylor you would have to leave out one of the true all time catching greats. The only slips fielder than can compare to Mark Waugh is Bob Simpson who also has the highest catching rate outside of wicketkeepers.I am not sure whether Simpson was always in the slips but Mark Taylor spent his whole test career at slip .Mark Waugh during the period where Taylor was no longer blocking him from his rightful position had a phenomenal catching rate. The problem if you put Mark Taylor anywhere else he will give away runs, if you watched the World 11 test match Kallis and Inzuman it was an automatic single, the lazy and vain South African captain Grahame Smith spent the whole match at slip, like he did for the rest of his career, yet he wasn't even as good as Kallis in the position. Just as the world 11 suffered from having two of the best heavy slips fielders iin the covers despite having a team who averaged better than ever Australia they got thrashed in every match. Then you have to look at running between the wickets and the world 11 could hardly score a single when either Kallis and Izaman where at the crease.

Bowling Average is not everything you also got to consider Strike Rate. His average is exploded by his worse games. But his career strike rate is bloody awesome.

I'm not sure how you can argue that modern bats aren't massively better than they were in even the 90s...I don't know what to say to that. Same with pitches. These days they are flat and lifeless and give batsmen an easy run for the first 3-4 days. If we're looking at the last 25 years - that takes us back to 1991. South Africa came back into international cricket in 1992 with a great side - particularly their attack. The Windies would have flogged anyone in this era. The Pakistanis attack was lead by Imran (briefly) but then Akram and Younis with Saqlain and Mushtaq as the spinners. Sri Lanka were minnows untl the mid 90s but that's only four years into the period I'm talking about. For the rest of that time they had Murali and Vaas. India only became a powerhouse in the 2000s but nobody beat them at home during the 90s. There were very few weak bowling attacks in the 90s. You can't even compare Sri Lanka as minnows with Vaas and Murali in the 90s to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in the 2000s. Of course it's subjective but I argue completely that batsmen have better concentration levels these days. I see batsmen that bat on flat wickets and get out to whoofy one day and T20 shots all the time. Have a look at some of the great innings by Border and S Waugh in particular but also Boon, Taylor, Jones and the Waughs and tell me that they have less concentration than today's players. Guys like Hayden, Langer and Martyn all went on to become great cricketers after 2001 but they all had plenty of chances in the 90s and couldn't hold down spots in the team. I can understand why people pick Hayden before Taylor but personally find that difficult when Taylor kept him out of the test side for ten years. For mine, as good as he was, there is just no way that Langer is a better cricketer than Taylor. Even with all that, this isn't necessarily a knock on modern players. They are very good cricketers. My point is that you can't look at averages across these two eras and make decisions based on Martyn averaging three higher than M Waugh or Langer four higher than Taylor. There are plenty of factors (that to my mind are almost unarguable) that have made accumulating runs and increasing averages in the 2000s easier than it was in the 90s.

So you haven't seen a modern bat?

"Superbats, generic pitches to guarantee five daysm short boundaries, more tests against weaker nations and the overall quality of opposition attacks all work in favour of the younger guys." I think the power of the bats is exaggerated. Batsmen today are more muscular and can hit farther. If anything pitches are today engineered to get results. People go into meltdown if we have a 5 day draw. Boundaries are shorter I'll give you that, but that's more the T20 and one day game where that has been mostly felt. I think there were more tests against weak nations back in the 80's and 90's. There was no South Africa in the 80's and early 90's. England were easy beats throughout the 90's. India didn't emerge as a cricketing powerhouse until the turn of the century. Sri Lanka was a minnow up until the mid-90's. Pakistan and New Zealand were competitive teams, and of course the West Indies were a powerhouse. Bangladesh just beat England. That's how much the game has developed on the subcontinent. Also, batsmen today simply have better concentration levels and stamina. Boon was drinking 52 cans of beer on a plane. Today their diets and training routine are so tightly controlled that they know what they'll be having for dinner months in advance. They simply weren't as disciplined back in the 1980's.

Surely Scott Mueller has to get a run...

1. Hayden 2. Langer 3. Ponting 4. S. Waugh (V.C) 5. M. Hussey. 6. A.B (C) 7. Gilchrist 8. Harris 9. Warne 10. Johnson 11. Mcgrath Hard choice between Mr Cricket and pup, came down to what I think they both had between the ears, which had one clear winner for mine. I really can't see a place for anyone in the current team in a top side of the last 25 years. Ask me again in 5 years and I might include Warner over J.L.

Yeah - I like this team jamesb. You couldn't really go wrong with your choice of skipper between Taylor, Border and Waugh.

I'm pretty sure Clarke wasn't skipper when the run in with Katich occurred.

The records of Taylor, M Waugh, Slater, Jones and Boon with their averages in the low 40s don't compare when stacked up against the record of guys like Warner, Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Clarke and Hussey with mid-high 40s to low 50s. The latter guys are fine players but in terms of averages have an easier run of it than the earlier players. Test averages have rocketed after about 2001. Superbats, generic pitches to guarantee five daysm short boundaries, more tests against weaker nations and the overall quality of opposition attacks all work in favour of the younger guys. Throwing out for example that Martyn averaged 46 while M Waugh averaged 42, therefore Martyn's better doesn't really mean too much to me. Likewise Taylor compared to Hayden, Langer or Warner. I also don't think Border had the "least natural ability". He put a lot of his natural game to one side to be the anchor for the test team for at least six or seven years.

Probably rules out Warne, Slater, Clarke, Warner, McGill and even Katich (seriously, scruffing your captain?!? Even if it was Clarke, that's seriously dumb). I hope Warner proves me wrong by the end of his career. He's shown a lot more maturity in the last 18 months.

Hayden Langer (edges out Warner for his reliability under pressure, Boon an honourable mention) Ponting Hussey (more consistent in this position than M Waugh and Clarke, more reliable than Martyn) S Waugh (vc) Border (c) Gilchrist Johnson (edges out Lee for his ability to win a match single-handedly, as well as the variety he adds with his left arm) Warne Harris (just in front of Dizzy because he was so miserly, plus he went out on top) McGrath It blows my mind that anyone could consider Starc for this team. He might come close by the end of his career but he just hasn't done enough for long enough in test cricket.

I agree, Robbie. Langer is everything that is missing from our current side - feisty, resilient and willing to adapt to the surface and the situation. The perfect foil for Hayden. He's exactly what we need in England and Sri Lanka. Picking Hayden and Warner together would be a recipe for disaster on any pitch with a bit of sideways movement. I love Warner and he could well make this list by the time he retires but JL should be in.

Nothing to argue about...

Hayden warner is a great home opening combo. Warner shouldn't be near the side when it tours. Langer and Taylor were far more accomplished overseas.

Yes, but what if you apply the "no d---heads" policy, how many make it then? :)

For starters, I wouldn't pick current players, because you don't know how there careers will end up. So on that basis, Warner misses out. My team: M. Taylor (c) M.Hayden R.Ponting M.Waugh S.Waugh A.Border A.Gilchrist M.Johnson S.Warne R.Harris G.McGrath Hayden, Punter, Tugger, Gilly, Warney and Pidge are all certainties. Taylor is the best Australian captain I've ever seen. Averages slightly less then Langer, but Langer did benefit from 2000 onwards when the Windies had no firepower in their bowling. M.Waugh could frustrate you with some of his dismissals, but he did play some crucial hands in his career. The Jamacian hundred is one of them. Border just sneaks into the side. By the nineties, he was past his best, but he was still consistent, right up until his final innings. I'd pick Johnson over Lee, but by not much. And I go with Harris over Dizzy. Harris just had that element of class about him. Australia were a better side when Harris played.

Don, you forgot Paul "Blocker" Wilson!

Greg Matthews made a strong point on radio last year that a batting average pre 2000 approximately was worth five more than today's batsmen. He stated a number of things such as the technology of the bat. and he possibly mentioned that the fast bowlers were a hell of a lot better back in the 80's and 90's.