NSW's Test XI of the 21st century

Agree Nick. NSW could pick blokes in their 40s and still plunder. Queensland just limp along wondering when it's their turn to play in the sand pit

So many imports. There should have been an embargo. No wonder Queensland lost all the time. Their imports were no good and their own players weren't even that good

England v England. The battle of the Minnows at the Gabba Good to see they are already sucking v New Zealand. Cmon Kiwis. Bash those lousy Urn hoarders

Perhaps the red line should be put through some of the selectors a bit bit more often. Maybe have them contracted for set terms, then go through performance reviews like most in private industry. If you don’t meet the kpi’s then you get the flick.

Victoria would beat this rabble of individuals.

There's only been 20 years this century. Good chance he knows the best ones by heart, like the rest of us

With that criteria the choices of Simon Katich, Mark Waugh, Brad Haddin and Stuart Macgill make much more sense over the likes of Phil Jaques, any batsman that is predominately in the 2000's, Adam Gilchrist and Nathan Lyon. I have you selecting 10/11 positions correctly. I do not like the selection of Brett Lee, the only thing he has going for him is his 310 test wickets (at 31). The counter is Starc has 244 at a better average (27) and strike rate. Hazelwood has 195 at a better average (26) and Stuart Clark has 94 at the third best average (23) of eligible fast bowlers. Even Doug the Rug took 50 wickets at 26. What source do you use to know which player is aligned with which state? ESPNCricinfo doesnt have great first class data aside from the aggregates.

got to agree with that. A new article on the make up of the upcoming t20 side gets into the tv coverage which to me was not that interesting. Probably because there is not a lot one can disagree with the team selected except positions based on how they are going. But all good stuff...it's cricket after all

You can look at it in different ways. Brown certainly grew up and learnt his cricket in Sydney and broke into first class cricket and the Test team in NSW. Not really a “product” of Queensland unless you think there’s something genetic about being a Queenslander (some no doubt do!) but I guess he could have fronted for either state in a State of Origin game, a bit like Greg Inglis.

Yep. 17 of his 20 tons came in the 90s, then his 18th v west indies 2000-01 and his final two in the 2001 Ashes series. We wouldn’t pick Ricky Ponting for a world XI for the period 2010-19, nor would Viv Richards get picked for a team of the 90s, even though he played until mid 1991.

Yeah, I have no problem with counting a decade as starting in the year ending in zero and finishing in the year ending in 9, as 1990 for example is not part of the ‘80s’, whereas 1980 is – and we are talking social aspects of human society there. But with history of human civilisation, there is no place for anyone claiming 2000 as part of the 21st century, the reason being, every year in human history is divided into either Common Era (CE) or Before Common Era (BCE) and there is not neutral year called ‘0’ that went for 365 days. 1 BCE was then followed by 1 CE. Nobody in 1900 claimed it was the start of a new century, and I think the folly of 100 years later was caused by the excitement of the fact that it was also coinciding with a new millennium – basically people just got a little eager and premature because they couldn’t wait any longer. 1900, 1800, 1700 et el were referred to as the ‘turn of the century’ with the year ending in 01 the actual beginning of the new one. While it makes sense to talk about a team of the 80s that takes in 1980-89, it is still vital that under no circumstances we include 2000 in the terminology of 21st century, even all star cricketing XIs … therefore, we are more than free to boot Mark Waugh out of this one. Actually, if we really wanted to be strict in having equal decades to account for classifying the history of test cricket, then we would create a cricketing decade that begins in years ending in 7 and ends in years ending in 6 because the first test was played in the calendar year of 1877. Conversely, one day decades would follow the exact same path as decades accounting for history of human civilisations because the first one day international was played in the calendar year of 1971. But that’s too complicated for most people, so lets calls decades of contemporary and recent society the 70s, 80s, 90s etc while simultaneously burying the myth once and for all that 2000 was a year from the 21st century.

Plus a hat trick.

Very true. Telling that all the examples are in the 90's.

Queensland were always rightly accused of trying to ‘buy’ a shield with imports. Not players like Thommo, Chappell, Border and even Kepler Wessels, all of whom legitimately made their life here, but more the overseas imports … Sheer pride would always make Viv Richards give his all no matter what team he was playing for, but in 1976-77, he was still a very young player who didn’t yet have the aura to rub off on the young players – most in the team would have been older than him so it was a waste of money irrespective of how many runs he did or didn’t make. Plus he was probably cooked mentally after such a magnificent watershed record breaking year in test cricket in 1976. It was absolute folly to think that Botham would be as inspired playing for a an aussie state side as when playing for England or his own county of birth and upbringing, and Graeme Hick hadn’t even played a test yet for heavens sake. No imports the year we finally won it in 1994-95 or any time since so it just goes to show. Funnily enough, that first shield title came barely a month before our watershed win over the windies champs for the first time nearly 20 years, and I said before the final that much as I wanted Queensland to win, if I had to choose between that and beating the windies, it was a nobrainer for me, has to be the windies.

We didn’t need him – either in Queensland or Australia.

Interesting background. Father a Jamaican Olympian, and actually born in WA rather than Qld ! I don't know how old he was when he moved to Brisbane, I think via Cairns.

Nash was actually an export …

Right. That explains the mix up. And Watto was the second. He actually thought he was the first, he reviewed it, and as usual was not successful ….

Mark Waugh was like Doug Walters in that he would almost always play that one major innings each series at a critical point. Such as Kingston 95, Port Elizabeth 97, Karachi 98 … even Sydney 98-99 while the Ashes had been retained the series still hadn’t been won. And his innings in Antigua 91 and Bangalore 98 paved the way for drought breaking test match victories in the Carribean and India, even if we didn’t win the series on those two occasions. There was also v windies in Melbourne 92-93 and v saffies 97-98 in Sydney and Adelaide … those priceless contributions are what made Mark Waugh so indispensable … hardly mattered that his average was closer to 40 than 50.