The greatest Australian Test XI this century

Yes our selections have often be too conservative. I couldn’t understand why Hussey wasn’t rushed in at the time given he was already over there and at his peak. The simple fact he wasn’t in the squad at the time should have been irrelevant. I remember being shocked at Gillespies sudden drop off in form given he had been such a consistently good bowler for us over the years. I hadn’t picked up on his drop in form before the first test. Tait I think had already shown he wasn’t up to test level so his selection smacked off desperation. The two spinners would have been a better more aggressive option given we needed to win that final test.

Pete B … While the ineptness of our batting against the swinging ball, particularly at pace, is what stood out at the forefront in 2005, equally to blame was some unbelievable bad bowling, by the likes of Gillespie mainly in tests 2 and 3, and then the overrated Tait in tests 4 and 5, as well as some very poor selections. Obviously, hindsight is 20-20, but here is what should have happened selection wise: Gillespie should have been left out of the first test in favour of Kaspowich, as he was hopelessly out of form. Although Australia easily won the first test, Gillespie’s input was zilch with match figures of 0 for 44 off 14 overs. In the following two tests before he was dropped his figures were 3 for 256 off 53 overs, and at least one of those wickets was a tailender when England were well past 400 batting first in the pivotal 3rd test. When Kaspowich came in in place of McGrath in the 2nd test, he returned figures in the first innings of 3 for 80 off 15 overs – slightly expensive economy rate, but a very good average of 26 runs per wicket and a wicket every 30 balls. Given that my alternative history has Kaspowich already in and Gillespie out, then when McGrath stood on that cricket ball, Stuart Clark should have debuted as a like for like replacement, bowling style wise and this would also have eliminated the desperate need to rush McGrath back for the 3rd test that started only 3 days later before he had regained fully fitness, especially if Australia had managed to win that 2nd test. Assuming that McGrath was then fit for the 4th test, it would be a choice between Clark or Kaspowich to be 12th man depending on who had bowled the better of the two overall across tests 2 and 3, remembering Brett Lee was bowling with genuine firepower at the time. In the batting department, with neither Martyn nor Katich having made any decent contribution since their respective 60s in the 2nd innings of the victorious first test, then Hussey should have debuted, probably in place of Katich as Martyn was more established in the side. Then when Martyn failed again in the 4th test, then he could have been dropped for the 5th test with Gilly moving up to number 6 in order to accommodate the inclusion of MacGill at the oval without having to drop any of the pacemen. It was criminal not to have two spinners in that oval test, especially as Warne ended up getting 12 wickets, while McGrath’s match figures read 5 for 157. Tait and Lee combined had match figures of 3 for 271. In fact, Tait only bowled 5 overs in England’s 2nd innings and went for nearly a run a ball. The oval was not a place for firepower, but rather Clark and McGrath to work in tandem choking the English batsmen for Warne and MacGill to work over. Kaspowich took 7 for 36 in England’s 2nd innings at the same ground 8 years earlier.

Yeah, that unbeaten 151 out of a team total of 281 you mention in Cape Town was a real turning point in Clarke’s career as it was the moment when he assumed the mantel of genuine greatness, graduating from being merely very good … prior to this innings, I think the lowest team total in which Clarke had scored a century was about 460, with the average team total for all his previous 15 test tons being in excess of 500. It was his first stellar performance where he dominated an attack while the rest of the line up crumbled around him, and apart from being more than half of a low team total, two other things made it a near carbon copy of Kim Hughes’s immortal unbeaten ton at MCG on boxing day against the West Indies in 1981: 1. The quality of the attack – Steyn, Morkel, Philander and Kallis as a combo would be not far behind Holding, Roberts Garner and Croft, and 2. The way he smashed them around while only having the number 10 and 11 batsmen for support. In both Hughes’s and Clarke’s case, they scored the large majority of the priceless runs added for the 10th and 9th wickets respectively.

Having listened to the first three Tests on Indian radio on the back of a houseboat on Dal Lake in Kashmir in 2004, I traveled down to Mumbai for the Fourth Test in November...Clarke's 6 for 9 was a surreal thing to witness at the pre-refurbished Wankhede Stadium. Almost, but not quite, surpassed by Aus getting done for 93 chasing 102 in the 4th. Later that night I bumped into JL, Punter and - I think Lehmann - in the foyer of the Taj Hotel following a last night farewell dinner of supporters that I happened across. I wasn't on an organised supporter tour, but it was an awesome Test match experience nonetheless. Clarke's blonde-tinted performance in Mumbai was unbelievable. 6-for in that match, to go with his 150 on debut in the First Test in Banglaore, as you noted. Incredible stuff. And the series led almost exclusively by Adam Gilchrist as captain, in Ponting's injury absence. It was a remarkable debut series from Clarke in 2004. I was never a big fan of Clarke, but I also happened to be (well, it was actually planned) in Cape Town in 2011 when Clarke came out in the morning of Day 2 of the First Test where he took control and belted 150+, after which, a further 21 wickets fell in the day (SAF 96 and Aus 47). It was the most subilme days of cricket I could have ever imagined occurring, let alone being there, but Clarke on that morning was again superb. When Clarke was on song, he was really really on.

On his first two tours to India he was shit. On his last two he was very solid with a ton and 4 half tons in 6 tests over those last two tours in 2008-09 and 2 years later.

Trung, don’t forget Clarke debuted in that watershed 2004 win in India. In the two tests Australia won, Martyn’s contribution was 2 tons and a 90 while Clarke’s (in same two tests) was a 150, a 90 and a 70, so fairly on a par with each other. In the 2nd of those wins to wrap up the series, Gillespie took 9 wickets, and 20 for the series, so these were the three key performers in that series triumph. Ironically, all three were dismal in the 2005 Ashes loss, which was also instrumental in the negative series result there. So let’s stick with Clarke, as Martyn’s career this century was 2001-2006, while Clarke’s was 2004-2015. I hadn’t twigged to the fact (before someone else mentioned it elsewhere) that Steve Waugh’s selection is a farce as his entire career ended in January 2004, and after the end of the 2001 Ashes in England, he was well past his best … obviously he would be the first or second picked for an Australian team of the combined 1980s and 90s and would also challenge hard for a spot in an all time Australian test XI. Given the legitimate reasons that more than one roarer has given for having Langer over Warner, the correct team (initial squad of 13) should thus read as follows: 1. Hayden 2. Langer 3. Ponting 4. Smith 5. Clarke 6. Hussey 7. Gilchrist 8. Johnson 9. Warne 10. Cummins 11. McGrath 12. Harris 13. Gillespie

I made the point earlier that Johnson’s cold days, which were certainly woeful, were almost certainly the result of crippling expectations on his shoulders about having to be the number 1 spearhead in the team. The fact that it took Australia until it’s 18th attempt post Warne and McGrath retirement to win an Ashes test without Johnson taking a 5 for in either innings would add weight to this suspicion. Given that McGrath, Cummins and Warne will be in the attack with him, this burden will disappear and we should see a much higher proportion of his (Johnson’s) hot days, which were absolutely sizzling. I regard Gillespie more as competing with Cummins for a spot than with Johnson, whose left arm ness provides extra variety. Perhaps Ryan Harris could be 12th man as due recognition for a bowler that none other than Ricky Ponting rated as one of the best he had played with or against.

Me too.

I don't know whether anyone else has already said this but I would actually choose Langer over Warner as he was a much more soundly performed player overseas - that's putting it mildly. We don't need Warner's super human powers at home on flat tracks against mediocre attacks as we have Hayden. Plus, Hayden and Langer were a near flawless and near peerless combo anyway. Among long term opening partnerships against multiple opposition in a wide range of conditions, only Greenidge and Haynes can sit beside them.

I agree with JGK. I see Gillespie more as competing with Cummins for a spot rather than with Johnson, and the latter would provide great variety with his left arm ness. Johnson was notoriously hot and cold, it's true, but his hot was absolutely sizzling and with McGrath, Cummins and Warne in the attack it's not as if he (Johnson) would be overburdened by an expectation to be the number 1 spearhead of the attack.

The team isn't for last century it is for this century.

Hallelujah! Finally Rhino gets a mention! McGrath, Cummins and R.Harris is a wicked pace attack. Johnson's best was brilliant, but the most pertinent description of Johnson was that he was like a pawpaw: perfect one day, rotten the next! Harris' record is amazing for how few matches he played. He's gotta be in there

Yep, that flew right over my head! :silly:

Fairly confident Nudge is being very sarcastic

Possibly so. One big score is not really correct. One century yes, but that same series against South Africa where he hit his 123 not out, he was also stranded on 96 not out in the first test. And he had hit 43 not out and 64 in his previous test (at home to South Africa). His average peaked then after 22 tests at a tick under 35. From there is was downhill to around the 2 or 23 mark and it stayed there for the rest of his career. Later on he also hit a 92 not out against Sri Lanka in Melbourne and an 88 against India in Brisbane. So one excellent series and a scattering of good scores, with 12 over 50's. Brett Lee's batting average of 0.15 was a good 2 points lower than Johnson's and he only hit five half centuries in his career. Of those five fifties, Lee never crossed 65. I'd say it's a comfortable victory to Johnson. He even had a significantly higher strike rate.

One big score. So little in averages . Johnson batted more but not significant runs more.. again , opinion

Thats why there was only three wickets separating them in their test careers ??? They were both shock bowlers and that was the X factor But its your opinion

I’d scrap Ponting and replace with Mark Waugh. One of the most versatile players over the last century. He can open the batting, roll his arm over and is an exceptional fielder.

Johnson was a significantly better batsman than Lee.

Waugh didn't bowl post 2000 so if you take out Clarke your very shaky on the 5th bowler front. The only other option is Smith who offers very little control