Having read the recent article selecting Australia’s seven best XIs, I wondered what would happen if I followed this line of thought and applied a similar concept to the best XIs of the decade that cricket magazines often select but applied it to individual countries.
Given Australia’s consistent strength, it seemed logical to begin there. Where a player’s career has stretched over two or more decades, for example in Shane Warne’s case, I have included them in the period where they achieve their greatest period of success.
So, here they are (in reverse order).
2010-2019
1. David Warner
2. Chris Rogers
3. Usman Khawaja
4. Steve Smith
5. Michael Clarke
6. Shane Watson
7. Tim Paine
8. Mitchell Starc
9. Pat Cummins
10. Mitchell Johnson
11. Nathan Lyon
I would have loved to have included Ryan Harris, but given the three pace bowlers he’s competing for a place with, it was impossible to justify.
Batting competition includes Marnus Labuschagne and Adam Voges but in the decade in question neither played enough Tests.
The final choice was between Paine and Brad Haddin for wicket-keeping duties. With similar batting averages I’ve gone with Paine as the better keeper.
2000-2009
1. Matthew Hayden
2. Justin Langer
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Damian Martyn
5. Michael Hussey
6. Andrew Symonds
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Brett Lee
10. Jason Gillespie
11. Glenn McGrath
This decade is almost a no-brainer.
Though Warne and McGrath started their stellar careers in the previous decades, their numbers are superior in this one. Simon Katich misses out at No.6 to Symonds, despite a superior average, simply because most of his runs came at the top of the order. Darren Lehmann, Stuart MacGill and Stuart Clark miss out.
Shane Warne. (Hamish Blair/Getty Images)
1990-1999
1. Mark Taylor
2. Michael Slater
3. David Boon
4. Mark Waugh
5. Steve Waugh
6. Greg Blewett
7. Ian Healy
8. Paul Reiffel
9. Tim May
10. Merv Hughes
11. Craig McDermott
Again, this one is fairly straightforward.
Though Michael Bevan was a one-day genius, his Test performances aren’t good enough to dislodge Blewett. Damien Fleming just misses out to Reiffel with the latter’s batting giving him the edge.
No matter how much I would have liked to include the variety of Colin Miller, I had to go with May as the better pure spin-bowler. His performances in 1993 when playing in tandem with Warne were exceptional.
1980-1989
1. Kepler Wessels
2. Bruce Laird
3. Dean Jones
4. Allan Border
5. Kim Hughes
6. Greg Matthews
7. Wayne B. Phillips
8. Bruce Yardley
9. Geoff Lawson
10. Bruce Reid
11. Terry Alderman
Laird gets the nod ahead of Geoff Marsh and Graeme Wood as opener on the basis of his WSC performances against the West Indian fast bowlers, although Wood was no slouch either.
Graham Yallop was an alternative to Hughes but I went with who I would rather watch in full-flow. On that basis, David Hookes is an option at six ahead of Matthews, but Matthews had the higher average and was also an all-rounder.
There weren’t a lot of alternatives in the bowling department. Though Rodney Hogg played more matches in this decade, his record was vastly inferior to his 1978 debut series, and Carl Rackemann was too often injured to make a bigger impression.
1970-1979
1. Ian Redpath
2. Rick McCosker
3. Ian Chappell
4. Greg Chappell
5. Ross Edwards
6. Doug Walters
7. Rodney Marsh
8. Dennis Lillee
9. Max Walker
10. Jeff Thomson
11. Ashley Mallett
This one pretty much picks itself. Though Gary Gilmour is an option as an all-rounder and Alan Hurst, Geoff Dymock and Jim Higgs offer bowling alternatives, none are good enough to displace the incumbents. McCosker gets the second opener role ahead of Keith Stackpole.
1960-1969
1. Bill Lawry
2. Bob Simpson
3. Bob Cowper
4. Norm O’Neill
5. Peter Burge
6. Brian Booth
7. Wally Grout
8. Graham McKenzie
9. Neil Hawke
10. Alan Connolly
11. John Gleeson
With many of the stars of the early-1960s team having played the bulk of their careers in the 1950s, this decade lacks depth. The only competition for the above XI are Barry Shepherd who played only nine Tests and Tom Veivers with unexceptional numbers.
1950-1959
1. Arthur Morris
2. Colin McDonald
3. Neil Harvey
4. Lindsay Hassett
5. Jim Burke
6. Keith Miller
7. Richie Benaud
8. Alan Davidson
9. Ray Lindwall
10. Gil Langley
11. Bill Johnston
Probably the best bowling attack of all the teams here (and possibly of all time). So good that Ian Johnson, Ron Archer and Ian Meckiff don’t make the XI.
1940-1949
1. Sid Barnes
2. Bill Brown
3. Ken Meuleman
4. Lindsay Hassett
5. Sam Loxton
6. Ron Hamence
7. Colin McCool
8. Don Tallon
9. Bruce Dooland
10. Len Johnson
11. Ernie Toshack
This is very much a best-guess line-up with WWII interrupting or delaying the careers of the above. Other possibilities include Mervyn Waite, Ted White, Merv Harvey, Jack Badcock and Ben Barnett.
Brown and Hassett are included as they were 28 and 27 when the decade started and their careers spanned pre and post-war. Though this is also the case with Don Bradman and Bill O’Reilly, both were in their 30s and were firmly established in the team during the 1930s.
1931-1939
1. Bill Ponsford
2. Bill Woodfull
3. Don Bradman
4. Archie Jackson
5. Stan McCabe
6. Jack Fingleton
7. Bert Oldfield
8. Clarrie Grimmett
9. Bill O’Reilly
10. Ernie McCormick
11. Tim Wall
No room in an incredibly strong batting line-up for Alan Kippax, while Bert Ironmonger and Chuck Fleetwood-Smith cannot displace Grimmett and O’Reilly. Alan Fairfax and Laurence Nash did not play enough Tests to be selected ahead of Wall and McCormick.
Roarers, I would love to hear any thoughts on the above and any suggestions for improvements, especially anyone I may have missed.
England’s XIs are next.
Mike B
Guest
I have to agree with Harris over Starc. Harry was just SO consistent. He absolutely, always delivered. The same can't be said for Starc who I tire of seeing brilliant one day and rubbish the next. Even an over-the-hill Siddle was picked ahead of him during the last Ashes. Johnson was also prone to the same thing and I think a fast bowling attack of Cummins, Starc, Johnson would be far less reliable than Cummins, Harris, Johnson and no where near as well balanced. Cummins would often end up having the role of "workhorse" in the team you've picked - especially when injury prone Watson (who was a great 5th bowler don't get me wrong) is your back up! Just my opinion.
Mike B
Guest
I think you were very generous to Bruce Laird. He did get to play some Test cricket post WSC and wasn't very effective. In fact, I'm quite sure he never managed a century. I went to and followed WSC (being 14/15 at the time). There was certainly some great cricket played but it was all in Australia and didn't have the same scrutiny as Test cricket. I would've played Swampy Marsh ahead of Laird. Yes he had his limitations, but he was actually a crucial member of the team that clawed its way out of 1985 mediocrity. He embodied the Simpson mantra of "working your hardest to get the most out of what you have". Border backed him, rated him and was upset when he was eventually dropped for more talented young players coming through, such as Slater, Taylor and Mark Waugh, who were able to build upon the platform Swampy was part of laying. A platform that was based around a team-first ethos, hard-work, competitiveness, good fielding and dedication to your profession. Players such as Boon and Steve Waugh were part of that rebuilding but had the natural talent to remain. Swampy was very influential for a couple of years and was a great member of that awesome 1989 Ashes tour (he and Taylor batted all day on the first day of one of the tests. They destroyed England's will to fight and the series and test were virtually over by the morning of the second day!). Swampy and Laird were both stoic and limited as players but Swampy had a far greater influence on Aussie cricket and where it was headed after he was done. In fact, as I write this, I can't believe you picked Laird ahead of him!
Rob Peters
Guest
I agree with most of your picks. Here's my thing with the 80s team. I'd have dropped Matthews and either brought in Hookes and used Border and Wessels as back up to Yardley, or keep Phillips and use him as an opener or in the middle order and not as a keeper, which would either be Rixon or Zoehrer. As for the battle between Marsh or Laird as opener, I'd ask myself who would I want to open for me if Australia was batting against the WI bowlers of the early to mid 80s? That for me would be Laird. Unfortunately I can't find room for Pascoe or Hogg.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I would've had Vic in the 30's team. Because of the fresh captaincy of 'that' Saffies tour.
Hpooly
Roar Rookie
Just for reference – performance information for 2010-2019 Tests/ Wkt/ Avge/SR /10WM/5WI – Starc 56 /240 / 27.09 / 48.2 / 2 /13 – Cummins 29 / 139 / 21.93 / 47.2 / 1 /5 – Harris 27 / 113 / 23.52 / 50.7 / 0 /5 – Johnson 43 / 176 / 28.68 / 50.1 / 2 /8
Hpooly
Roar Rookie
Laird was a left-field choice. His 3 WSC centuries showed he had ability and got him into the early-80’s test team in which he was solid if unspectacular, as was most of his competition. Marsh had the longer career and more stand-out performances but didn’t scream “pick-me” like a Hayden or a Warner so I went with personal preference.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Selections in mid 80's was fraught. Phillips didn't like keeping either and his batting became compromised. I believe the rot set in when they fully didn't commit to K Hughes and having Greg C pick n choose. Greg was selfish to put his own career above the sport and the office he was lucky to be bestowed with. To play for Australia should be a humble blessing and not an arrogant right
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
You're not a bad bloke for a RL man.
Jak
Guest
I would have loved to have included Ryan Harris, but given the three pace bowlers he’s competing for a place with, it was impossible to justify. Harris should be first picked. Better than the lot of them.
Paul
Roar Guru
I wouldn't be too concerned Hpooly. So what if guys are picked twice or not where they'd normally bat. The task you set yourself was a tough one and I think a few liberties are allowed. This is supposed to be a fun article and that's the way I took your selections. As the author, you can do what you like to make a piece interesting and readable.
Tigerbill44
Roar Guru
Excellent picks, although bit confused about Laird being picked in the 1980s team, when WSC was in the 70s.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Starc over Harris is the only genuine selection error for mine.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Exact same comment I made The Bush! :thumbup: :happy:
Micko
Roar Rookie
Would definitely have Harris in that side over Starc any day!
matth
Roar Guru
Great effort. Apart from Hassett representing 2 teams it looks very good
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
Hpooly you're absolutely right about Australian depth, Last year matth wrote a 23-part series selecting teams by the first letter of each player's surname, while I followed with a 12-part one on the basis of the month in which each had been born eg- https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/06/11/the-calendar-ashes-third-test-june/ Almost every side was a strong one, and generally too strong for its English equivalent !
Hpooly
Roar Rookie
I originally started including an age range in the criteria but then I got to the England teams and found myself in a little bit of a hole with players like Gooch, for example, who peaked in the 90’s when he was in his late 30’s and Boycott who was similar. Then Anderson and Broad just added to my woes. Whatever system is used will never be perfect but will always be interesting and enjoyable to critique.
Hpooly
Roar Rookie
With each team covering a 10 year period it was just about finding a way of getting some of the players into the team. With the quality of players available sometimes it was difficult. Most did bat lower down on occasions. Hassett’s double inclusion was an oversight, however it does back-up your point that some players would have made two or more teams. It would however have been less challenging and less fun doing it that way
sheek
Roar Guru
Hpooly, I’m pleased to note the 70s XI is exactly as I would have it, bar Laird for Redpath, but I’ll explain that presently. I have done decade selections across cricket, rugby union, rugby league & soccer. But I decided very early that a player could only be selected in one decade (like you). This can be problematic in that it provides anomalies, but I’m willing to live with that. It also meant I had to come up with a secondary parameter, that being the range of years a player was born for each decade. After some mixing & matching I decided on the following: 1960s (b.35-44), 1970s (b.45-54), 1980s (b.55-64), 1990s (b.65-74) & so on. In cricket, I had to bring Vic Richardson & Bert Oldfield (both born in 1894) into the 1920s team because so much youth was destroyed in the Great War. But fortunately, Richardson & Oldfield were historically correct for the 20s. To my pleasant surprise I have found this system to work very well, despite the occasional anomalies. So for you, here is my 60s, 70s, 80s & 90s based on my system. 1960s (b.35-44, player’s DOB in brackets) R.Simpson (36) vc. W.Lawry (37) I.Redpath (41) R.Cowper (40) I.Chappell (43) c. N.O’Neill (37) B.Jarman (36) wk. N.Hawke (39) G.McKenzie (41) J.Gleeson (38) A.Connolly (39) K.Stackpole (40) 12th man Another anomaly is that Chappell is captain based on career, although in the 60s he was a rookie for most of it. But I could change that to decade specific, which would mean Simpson is skipper. 1970s (b.45-54) B.Laird (50) R.McCosker (46) G.Yallop (52) G.Chappell (48) c. K.Hughes (54) vc. D.Walters (45) R.Marsh (47) wk. M.Walker (48) D.Lillee (49) J.Thomson (50) A.Mallett (45) G.Gilmour (51) 12th man 1980s (b.55-64) G.Marsh (58) vc. M.Taylor (64) D.Boon (60) D.Jones (61) A.Border (55) c. G.Matthews (59) I.Healy (64) wk. M.Hughes (61) T.May (62) T.Alderman (56) B.Reid (63) D.Hookes (55) 12th man Hughes pips G.Lawson, which may or may not be correct. 1990s (b.65-74) M.Hayden (71) J.Langer (70) R.Ponting (74) vc. D.Martyn (70) M.Waugh (65) S.Waugh (65) c. A.Gilchrist (71) wk. P.Reiffel (66) S.Warne (69) C.McDermott (65) G.McGrath (70) M.Bevan (70) 12th man
Hpooly
Roar Rookie
Harris would definitely have been in if he had stayed fit and played more tests. He was so unlucky with injuries and without them I think he would have been a test regular for years