I have drawn up four tables as a comparison between all Australian batsmen who faced the fearsome four-pronged West Indian pace attacks tween 1979 and 1997.
For this analysis, I am eliminating five of the six dead rubber Tests that occurred between the two sides in this period. These are the fifth Test in Kingston in the 1984 series, the fourth and fifth Tests in Melbourne and Sydney in 1984-85, and the fourth and fifth Tests in Sydney and Adelaide in the 1988-89 series.
As this comparison deals primarily with impact in winning series, the aforementioned matches have no relevance in rating players’ performances when it actually matters.
The fifth match of the 1991 series in Antigua will be included because it was a watershed victory for Australia for three important reasons.
Firstly, it was their first individual Test match victory in the Caribbean in 13 years and three series.
Secondly, unlike the Sydney Tests of the previous two West Indies tours down under in 1984-85 and 1988-89, it did not rely exclusively upon the one-dimensional conditions of a sharply turning pitch, but in fact was achieved in the opposition’s own home conditions.
Thirdly, and probably most importantly, unlike the previous three series between the two teams, Australia had actually competed on a near even footing in the previous four Tests for large periods of time while the series was actually alive.
Table 1 below shows a breakdown of first and second innings scores for all Australian batsmen for the period 1979-97 for non-dead rubber Tests only. The scores of the batsmen who played in the aforementioned 1991 Antigua Test are not shown in this table, but will be factored into Table 4 a little further on.
Player | Series | First innings | Second innings |
---|---|---|---|
Rick McCosker | 1979-80 | 14 | 33 |
Bruce Laird | 1979-80, 1981-82 | 92, 16, 52, 4, 14, 2 | 75, 69, 36, 64, 38, 78 |
Greg Chappell | 1979-80, 1981-82 | 74, 19, 0, 0, 12, 61 | 124, 22, 31, 6, 0, 7 |
Kim Hughes | 1979-80, 1981-82, 1984, 1984-85 | 3, 4, 34, 100*, 16, 5, 18, 24, 20, 24, 4, 34, 0 |
130*, 70, 11, 8, 13, 84, 0, 33, 25, 29, 37, 4, 2 |
David Hookes | 1979-80, 1984 | 43, 32, 23, 30, 51 | 37, 10, 21, 9, 29 |
Peter Toohey | 1979-80 | 10 | 7 |
Julian Wiener | 1979-80 | 40, 3 | 24,8 |
Ian Chappell | 1979-80 | 2 | 4 |
Rod Marsh | 1979-80, 1981-82 | 3, 0, 5, 21, 17, 39 | 19, 7, 23*, 2, 38 |
Allan Border | 1979-80, 1981-82, 1984, 1984-85, 1988-89, 1991, 1992-92 | 1, 17, 54, 4, 53*, 78, 5, 98*, 38, 98, 15, 17, 21, 4, 6, 0, 31, 47, 43, 29, 73, 110, 74, 19, 0 |
7, 15, 24, 66, 9, 126, 54, 100*, 8, 19, 6, 24, 18, 41, 26, 20, 34, 27*, 0, 17, 4, 1, 0 |
Graeme Wood | 1981-82, 1983-84, 1984, 1984-85, 1988-89 | 3, 63, 5, 68, 6, 20, 41, 6, 111, 12 |
46, 7*, 6, 20, 56, 3, 19, 0, 42, 7 |
John Dyson | 1981-82, 1984 | 28, 1, 0, 13, 8 | 127*, 10, 30, 21, 5 |
Dirk Wellham | 1981-82 | 17 | 2 |
Kepler Wessels | 1984, 1984-85 | 4, 4, 13, 0, 98 | 20, 4, 0, 61, 70 |
Wayne Phillips | 1984, 1984-85 | 16, 4, 120, 5, 22, 44 | 76, 0, 1, 22,16, 54 |
Greg Ritchie | 1984 | 78, 1, 57, 6 | 3, 26, 0, 23 |
Dean Jones | 1984, 1988-89, 1991 | 48, 1, 28, 0, 34, 21, 22 | 5, 11, 18, 3, 39*, 37 |
Graham Yallop | 1984-85 | 2 | 1 |
Steve Smith | 1984 | 3, 10 | 12, 7 |
David Boon | 1984-85, 1988-89, 1991, 1992-93, 1995 | 11, 12, 10, 80, 23, 109*, 7, 27, 0, 48, 46, 76, 39*, 44, 20, 21, 18, 17 |
51, 9, 12, 4, 20, 2, 29, 57, 111, 11, 63*, 0, 52, 67, 9 |
Geoff Marsh | 1988-89, 1991 | 27, 20, 36, 69, 94, 10, 12 | 2, 6, 1, 22, 12, 0 |
Steve Waugh | 1988-89, 1991, 1992-93, 1995, 1996 | 4, 91, 42, 26, 2, 10, 38, 100, 42, 13, 65, 15, 63*, 200, 66, 58, 26 |
90, 26, 3, 4, 20, 1, 4, 0, 65*, 21, 37 |
Mike Veletta | 1988-89 | 37, 11 | 10, 13 |
Ian Healy | 1988-89, 1991, 1992-93, 1995, 1996-97 | 27, 8, 4, 0, 53, 9, 2, 17, 24, 36*, 0, 0, 74*, 14, 8, 6, 161*, 44, 36, 12 |
28, 52, 8, 47, 0, 18, 8, 0, 27, 26, 0, 45*, 22*, 0 |
Mark Taylor | 1991, 1992-93, 1995, 1996-97 | 58, 0, 61, 26, 7, 13, 20, 1, 55, 37, 2, 8, 43, 27, 7, 11 |
15, 2, 76, 34, 42, 46*, 7, 16*, 5 30, 36, 16, 10 |
Greg Matthews | 1991, 1992-93 | 10, 1, 30, 79 | 16, 0 |
Damian Martyn | 1992-93 | 36, 7, 0, 13 | 15, 67*, 31 |
Justin Langer | 1992-93, 1996-97 | 20, 10, 12, 19 | 54, 1, 0 |
Greg Blewett | 1995, 1996-97 | 14, 11, 17, 69, 69, 62, 99 | 19, 2, 47*, 7 |
Michael Slater | 1995 | 18, 41, 0, 27 | 20*, 5, 15 |
Matthew Elliott | 1996-97 | 0, 29 | 21, 78 Retired Hurt |
Michael Bevan | 1996-97 | 0, 16, 85 no | 20, 52 |
Matthew Hayden | 1996-97 | 5, 125 | 0 |
Ricky Ponting | 1996-97 | 88, 9 | 9, 4 |
Mark Waugh | 1991, 1992-93, 1995, 1996-97 | 39, 64, 71, 20*, 39, 112, 57, 0, 9, 40, 4, 2, 126, 38, 19, 0, 82 |
31, 3, 60, 16, 26, 21, 61, 7, 57, 67, 19 |
For the purpose of this whole analysis, the following Australian innings in the non-dead rubber Tests in this study will be excluded.
• The third innings in the second Test in Melbourne 1979-80
• The third innings in Antigua 1984
• The third innings in Perth 1984-85
• The third innings in Brisbane 1984-85
• The third innings in Brisbane 1988-89
• The third innings in Guyana 1991
• The third innings in Perth 1992-93
Batsmen’s scores in these innings are listed in Table 1 but will not be factored into Table 4 later because these were all completely lost causes with Australia already doomed to defeat, and therefore nothing any batsmen did in any of these innings ever had any even remote capacity to influence the outcome of the match.
These innings from the non-dead rubber Australia v West Indies Tests from 1979-97 will also not be factored into Table 4 later.
• The fourth innings in the third Test in Adelaide 1979-80
• The fourth innings in the second Test in Perth 1988-89
• The fourth innings in the third Test in Melbourne 1988-89
• The fourth innings in the fourth Test in Barbados 1991
Batsmen’s scores in these innings are listed in Table 1 but will not be factored into Table 4 later because these were all completely lost causes with Australia already doomed to defeat, and therefore nothing any batsmen did in any of these innings ever had any even remote capacity to influence the outcome of the match.
This innings will also not be factored into Table 4 later.
• The fourth innings in the third Test in Adelaide 1984-85
Different to the four previously listed fourth innings above, this was the one occasion that Australia could reasonably have been expected to successfully bat out the remainder of the match to ensure a draw. On this occasion, the Test should definitely have been saved.
As this innings also fell into the category of being set an unreachable victory target, no runs scored hold any numerical relevance whatsoever in determining any batsmen’s impact in winning Frank Worrell Test series, whether they succeeded in hanging on for a draw or not.
These innings from the non-dead rubber Australia v West Indies Tests from 1979-97 will also not be factored into Table 4 later.
• The third innings in the third Test in Trinidad 1991
• The third innings in the third Test in Sydney 1992-93
Both these games were rain ruined causing the match to already be doomed to a draw by the time Australia began the third innings of the match so there is zero impact involved for any of the five Australian players that ended up batting across these two innings in question.
Finally, the fourth innings in the second Test in Sydney 1981-82 will only be factored into Table 4 later as an innings played for each of the six players who batted, and all will be treated as 0 not out. This was one of only two occasions against the West Indies during the entire 1979-97 time-frame under discussion that Australia successfully batted out a significant amount of time to force a draw in a match they could not possibly hope to win.
John Dyson’s unbeaten 127 in that particular instance is, in pure numerical terms, completely meaningless. However, what is absolutely priceless in such a situation is the 321 deliveries that didn’t dismiss him which accounted for more than 50 per cent of the 612 deliveries the opposition bowlers had in total at their disposal to take the ten Australian wickets to win the match.
A fourth innings back to the wall effort is different to a third innings back to the wall epic, such as Allan Border’s unbeaten even 100 in Trinidad 1984. In the case of a third innings (other than a lost, doomed cause), runs have priceless numerical value because erasing a deficit and then getting far enough in front actually aids the cause of staving off defeat.
In the aforementioned Trinidad example, Border had made his team safe from defeat by the time his own score had reached the 80-85 range.
Unfortunately, there is no way to quantify (in terms of runs) a successful match saving knock in an unwinnable fourth innings situation in terms of measuring overall impact across a batsman’s whole career, it can only be qualified in any individual occurrence.
In the 1991 series, none of Australia’s second innings in the four Tests that it took to decide the series had any relevance or impact to the result of any of those matches. Table 2 below shows the achievements of Australia’s top six in (the first innings of) those four matches.
Player | Runs in first innings |
Dismissals | Higest Score | 50s |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mark Waugh | 192 | 3 | 71 | 2 |
Geoff Marsh | 185 | 4 | 94 | 2 |
Allan Border | 150 | 4 | 47 | 0 |
Mark Taylor | 145 | 4 | 61 | 2 |
David Boon | 143 | 4 | 109* | 1 |
Dean Jones | 77 | 4 | 34 | 0 |
What must be remembered in regards to Table 2 above is that the other five Australian batsmen had a combined prior total of 42 Test matches against the West Indies alone, whereas Mark Waugh had only two Test matches in total against anyone under his belt coming into this series.
Table 3 below shows what the leading Australian batsmen between 1979 and 1991 had done in first innings of non-dead rubber Tests against the West Indies to this point in time. Batsmen are listed in the order of their first innings averages to the end of the 4th (and deciding) Test of 1991, though the averages themselves will not be listed.
Player | Runs in first innings |
Dismissals | Highest score | 50s |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mark Waugh | 194 | 3 | 71 | 2 |
Geoff Marsh | 268 | 7 | 94 | 2 |
David Hookes | 179 | 5 | 51 | 1 |
Mark Taylor | 145 | 4 | 61 | 2 |
Bruce Laird | 180 | 5 | 92 | 2 |
Greg Ritchie | 142 | 4 | 78 | 2 |
Wayne Phillips | 211 | 6 | 120 | 1 |
David Boon | 279 | 8 | 109* | 3 |
Allan Border | 649 | 19 | 98* | 6 |
Greame Wood | 334 | 10 | 111 | 3 |
Steve Waugh | 165 | 5 | 91 | 2 |
Greg Chappell | 166 | 6 | 74 | 2 |
Kim Hughes | 306 | 12 | 100* | 1 |
Kepler Wessels | 119 | 5 | 98 | 1 |
Dean Jones | 154 | 7 | 48 | 0 |
Ian Healy | 103 | 7 | 53 | 1 |
With the exception of Dean Jones, players who never reached 50 in a non-dead rubber against the West Indies of this period have been left off, in order to condense the table.
For reasons stated previously regarding his excellent match saving innings in Sydney 1981-82, John Dyson was also left off.
Two things stand out at this interim point: 1. Mark Waugh’s mean number of runs per dismissal to this point in time was 64.7 which was 1.7 times the next highest of 38.3. 2. His percentage of 50 plus scores per number of dismissals to this point was 67 per cent, which is 1.34 times the next best of 50 per cent.
Table 4 below fuses everything together up until the end of the 1996-97 series, the last time the West Indies had a powerful attack in a Frank Worrell Trophy series. The list is limited to batsmen who played in a minimum of seven innings within the set parameters.
Meaninful innings |
First innings average |
Meaningful average |
Strike rate | 100s | 50s | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mark Waugh | 26 | 45.1 | 46.6 | 52.6 | 3 | 8 |
Steve Waugh | 23 | 53.2 | 44.9 | 45.4 | 2 | 6 |
Bruce Laird | 10 | 30 | 44.1 | 32.9 | 0 | 5 |
Allan Border | 37 | 40.2 | 40.2 | 36.6 | 2 | 10 |
Greg Blewett | 10 | 48.7 | 36.7 | 48.5 | 0 | 4 |
David Boon | 27 | 38 | 36.6 | 40.3 | 2 | 3 |
Kim Hughes | 20 | 25.5 | 33.5 | 46.6 | 2 | 1 |
Wayne Phillips | 10 | 35.2 | 32 | 53.3 | 1 | 1 |
Graeme Wood | 14 | 33.6 | 31.4 | 40.1 | 1 | 2 |
Greg Chappell | 10 | 27.7 | 31 | 44.9 | 1 | 2 |
Geoff Marsh | 7 | 38.3 | 30.6 | 36.8 | 0 | 2 |
Ian Healy | 30 | 31.5 | 27.9 | 46.8 | 1 | 3 |
Mark Taylor | 26 | 23.5 | 27.5 | 35 | 1 | 3 |
David Hookes | 9 | 35.8 | 27.1 | 51 | 0 | 1 |
Dean Jones | 9 | 22 | 26.7 | 39.3 | 0 | 1 |
Greg Ritchie | 7 | 35.5 | 24.4 | 53.8 | 0 | 2 |
Michael Slater | 7 | 20.7 | 20.7 | 43.7 | 0 | 0 |
Kepler Wessels | 7 | 23.8 | 20.4 | 45.5 | 0 | 1 |
Rod Marsh | 8 | 14.2 | 15.6 | 38.1 | 0 | 0 |
John Dyson | 7 | 10 | 10 | 19.2 | 0 | 0 |
This table serves as providing genuinely relevant statistics relating to each batsman’s true impact in the (mostly fruitless) endeavour of beating the West Indies in Test series between 1979 and 1997. Just to reiterate, it includes only non-dead rubber Tests in this period plus the fifth Test of the 1991 series, and includes all first innings scores, but only second innings scores that had any real potential to impact upon the outcome of that particular match.
The following innings have been capped, as runs beyond this figure were not especially needed by the team in each respective case.
• Greg Chappell 124 in Brisbane 1979-80 and 100
• Kim Hughes 130 not out in Brisbane 1979-80 and 100 not out
• David Hookes 37 in Brisbane 1979-80 and 25
• Allan Border 100 not out in Trinidad 1984 and 85
• Mark Taylor 144 in Antigua 1991 and 100
• Mark Taylor 16 not out in Barbados 1995 and 5
• Michael Slater’s 20 not out in Barbados 1995 and 5
• Steve Waugh 65 not out in Antigua 1995 and 50
• Steve Waugh 200 in Jamaica 1995 and 150
• Mark Waugh 57 in Brisbane 1996-97 and 50
• Mark Waugh 67 in Sydney 1996-97 and 50
• Greg Blewett 47 not out in Sydney 1996-97 and 25
• Ian Healy 22 not out in Sydney 1996-97 and 10
• Mark Waugh 82 in Adelaide 1996-97 and 50
• Greg Blewett 99 in Adelaide 1996-97 and 50
• Matthew Hayden’s 125 in Adelaide 1996-97 would also have been capped at 100 had he played the minimum of seven innings within the set parameters.
• All six players who batted in the second (fourth) innings in Sydney in 1981-82 are treated as a meaningful innings for the first column of the above Table 4, though they are not factored into any of the other five columns of that same table. They are simply treated as 0 not out and there is a need to come up with some sort of authentic way as treating such innings as a type of statistical annex when reviewing a player’s performance through meaningful analysis.
The Waugh twins stood head and shoulders above all other Australian batsmen against the West Indies during the 1979-1997 period and there is little to separate them from the final Table 4 above.
• Mark Waugh has a fractionally, but not significantly higher meaningful average than Steve, though his strike rate is more than 15 per cent higher.
• Mark made a score of 50 or more in meaningful situations once every 2.4 innings, and this is significantly better than Steve’s own 2.9.
• Mark had a chance to convert nine of his 11 half-centuries into centuries; his team needed him to do so on four occasions and he did so on three out of those four occasions of need.
• Conversely, Steve had a chance to convert six of his eight half-centuries into centuries; his team needed him to do so on three of those occasions and he did so on two of those three occasions of need. This amounts to a meaningful successful conversion in need rate of 75 per cent for Mark and 66.7 per cent for Steve.
However, the main reason I rate Mark fractionally higher than Steve in terms of their 1988-97 performances against the West Indies is because he was far more instantaneously successful against them than Steve was.
Mark did outstandingly in his first one and a half series against them, while Steve was patchy and struggled in the majority of his first two and a half (series against the West Indies).
They were near equal as keys to winning or losing in 1995 and then in 1996-97, their impact was also fairly equal, despite overall statistics of raw aggregates and averages for both those series leaning, misleadingly, towards one or the other.
Thereafter, the West Indies attacks were no longer feared and by 1999 Mark was coming to the end of his prime years, whereas Steve continued in his for an extra couple of years up until the end of the 2001 Ashes, though Mark’s own decline until that same point was also gradual rather than rapid.
The only time in his first four series against the West indies (when their bowling was still powerful) when Mark can be said to have failed and let his team down when it really mattered was at the back end of the 1992-93 series, after he had been arguably our best batsman over the course of the first three Tests which saw us leading 1-0 at that stage, the first time we had led the West Indies after three Tests for 17 years.
Micko
Roar Rookie
July 1-5 @ Edgbaston: rescheduled ENG VS IND Test! :thumbup: :happy: :cricket:
Micko
Roar Rookie
I think we can all respect Bradman as an absolute champion batsman sheek. But I do feel a lot of circumstances went in his favour to achieve that stupendous average.
Micko
Roar Rookie
(Didn’t get this notification) Ummmm, because he’s said so previously.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
He is from QLD actually! "From" or "in"? And what's the proof?
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Jimmy Maher and Trevor Barsby???? You're lucky I didn't see that sacrilege matth. Else I would have attacked with the fury of old banana. Qlds' greatest ever openers were, beyond any dispute, Haydos and Slammin Sammy Trimble.
Clear as mud
Guest
yeah they were one bowler short in 75-6, Holding too raw to carry the attack. Julien, Boyce and Holder all quality cricketers but not going to match LiilianThommo. Boycey's tonking and brilliant arm distinct memories for me. they played not one spinner in Brisbane - both sides played 2! which put a huge load on Roerts' shoulders. I loved him, one guy I tried to emulate strategy wise. but after the 7 in Perth he only got 9 wickets in the last 3 tests. should any of this out an asterisk against GSC's runs, and the way they impact his averages as determined here? maybe. but I guess if the heroic WSC tour over there is out, it's probably fair these these runs stay in?
Clear as mud
Guest
both can be true. No big Border fan - a Hughes fanboi - but his 84 series, in the context of off-field dramas, scoreboard pressure, injuries leading to selection chaos, Hughes' run of 20's, the relentlessness of Garner and Marshall - it's the pinnacle. Up there with Lara 1999. they are to batting what Mitch J's 2013-14 was to bowling. the absolute peak. --- (my daughter aged 3 and I were watching Fire in Babylon on our mate's DVD the morning we flew out of Hobart around 2012. Literally an hour later, at the airport, there's the Sixers' squad waiting to board a plane. I say hi to Pat Farhart, who I played against in the early 80s - man he was quick! Then I look over and see the media. So I take her over, we meet BJ, who was a cold fish. Then AB arrives and he is like Santa, talking to my daughter about cricket, footy, what she likes to read. I tell him we were literally just watching him face Marshall and Garner that morning - he tells her, yes, they really were that fast... but he got lucky. What a guy. He is one of cricket's great gems.)
Clear as mud
Guest
Tubby and moaning Hohns debuting together. Keating as Treasurer. before the drought kicked in. uni almost done, 10 bands to see a night. the best tof times.... --- hey how about Tubby running himself out both digs the next game? that's actually my fave memory of that game, not Jones, or Merv tonking. wait so long to get in, England spost to play for... run out twice. Merv - 0-for a million... on the plane; Whitney - 9-for-nothing... go work on your haircut!
sheek
Roar Guru
Micko, I'm amazed & a little offended intellectually, that people continue to denigrate Bradman's stupendous batting average of 99.94. What do they hope to achieve? It is what it is. Bradman dominated the best of his era like no other sportsman/woman has dominated their era in their sport. Heather McKay in squash might be the closest example. But neither Pele nor Jordan nor Woods nor Fraser nor anyone else dominated their sport in their era to the same extent as Bradman dominated his era. But it seems people today simply can't accept the facts as they appear in black & white. They want to change them. The last time I looked, unless you're the Soviet Union of the 1920-80s, or maybe North Korea, or the CCP today, the history is as it is. People denigrate the lack of quality fast bowlers Bradman had to face. But he dominated whoever was put in front of him. Indians tried to say Tendulkar was superior over 3 formats. Well, forget it, Bradman only had one format in his day & he dominated like no other, Tendulkar included. This juvenile nitpicking never ceases to amaze me.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
I think you’ll be pretty much on your Todd Malone on that one HP.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
You think I am explaining away or desperate to keep MW out of a place? Or others are?. Anyway, I’m just suggesting that if you’re trying to win people over to an unconventional point of view it needs extra care about presentation of the message.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Sheek, I contributed an article recently that described how averages have stayed fairly stable since 1920 and thus more or less comparable, but lower before WWI. https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/09/22/yes-batting-averages-have-stayed-stable-since-1920-why-does-it-matter/
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
"Oh, running away, come back and fight you coward" (QUOTE could be wrong, it was OTTOMH)
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I can't remember whose from where and when. The Earth has fallen off it's axis with news that MW was in actual fact The Flaming Avenger.
sheek
Roar Guru
Also DaveJ, I've found picking the best all-time Baggy Greens XI, best all-time Kangaroos, best all-time Wallabies & best all-time Socceroos a relatively easy task. The best stand out, & apart from the odd quibble/debate, select themselves. The problems of separation usually occurs when selecting the 2nd, 3rd, 4th best. But the best are pretty easy to pick over 140 years, or 120 years, or 100 years.
sheek
Roar Guru
DaveJ, At the end of the day, it's all relative. Pre-1920, as you say, most batsmen were under 40 & most bowlers (the best) under 20. In the interwar years, many of the best batsmen were over 45 to 50 & many of the best bowlers over 25, nearing 30. Post 45, trends have stabilised, batting rising in the 50s & 60s & again in the 2000s, bowling stronger through the 70s to 90s. At the end of the day, it's still relative. The best of each decade or era rise to the top.
sheek
Roar Guru
Micko, Yes, Bradman is not twice as good as Border, despite the averages, but he was significantly better. I'm wary of rewriting history because we want to see things differently now, or push our favourite players higher. It was what it was. In each decade or era, the best play the best & the very best triumph. That's one constant that doesn't change over time.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Yet when Bradman came up against someone as ruthless as him Sheek he actually significantly declined, and actually was inferior to a few of his teammates. Someone like Border actually lifted though in the toughest situations. It's absurd to think that Bradman is twice as good as Border because of having effectively double his average...would you agree sheek?
Gee
Roar Rookie
Enough already, you all need help with this Mark Waugh obsession. He was not Bradman, he wasn't even the best batsmen in his family. Get some help, no matter how many selective stats you choose he only averaged 41. Develop an obsession about an actual great batsmen, there are at least 50 Australian batsmen who were superior than Mr Average Average.
Micko
Roar Rookie
He is from QLD actually! :stoked: