Last week, you read about the Matt XI, a compilation of the best cricketers ever to represent the name Matt. And to be fair, it was exceptionally well represented with the likes of Matt Hayden, Matt Elliott and Matt Prior included in the side. This week, the Steve XI makes its debut, and like the Matt XI, it is not without its issues.
Opening the batting is none other than the solid, if unspectacular, Stephen Fleming. Ably supporting him is Steve Smith (no, not that Steve Smith). Steven Barry Smith played three Tests for Australia in the 1980s until he threw in his lot with the rebel tourists in South Africa. An opener who made 5000 runs at first class level at almost 36 is not to be discounted, however, and therefore is a solid choice amongst thin options.
Batting 3 is none other than Steve Cook, the South African opener, who, despite underwhelming in his 11 Tests, made 390 in a first-class game while batting for almost 14 hours. A total of15,000 first class runs at an average of nearly 40 is also noteworthy.
Who else bats at 4 other than one of the greatest modern batsmen in history, Steve Smith? Little more needs to be written about Steve Smith, but he may have to carry this team. He may also have to bowl some overs of leg spin if required.
Steve Smith. (Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
If Steve Smith doesn’t get runs, then hopefully this side’s captain, Steve Waugh, does. 10,000 Test runs at an average over 50 speaks volumes to the batsman he was. His handy medium pacers (when his back permits) would also be helpful in this side.
Steve Rhodes, at 6, provides a pugnacious option, even if 294 runs in 11 Tests at an average of 24.5 would attest to unrealised potential at Test level.
Batting at 7 is the always reliable Steve Rixon. 394 runs at just 19 in 13 Tests leave much to be desired, but Rixon’s glovework was excellent and thus he takes position behind the stumps in this team.
Steven Finn provides some pace and bounce in the fast bowling attack. Stephen Boock, at 9 provides a spin bowling option, experience and guile as well as an excellent option at short leg, should the captain choose to have one. Steve Watkin and Steve Harmison, really interchangeable at 10 and 11, round out the batting order and provide more seam options.
Really unlucky to miss out is Steve O’Keefe, who never played the number of Tests that he deserved. A worthy 12th man, it’s hard to see who he’d displace in this side.
Also deserving of a mention are Steven Jack, Steve Elworthy, Steve Camacho, Stephen Peall and Steve James, all of whom had great careers in their own right. So, the XI looks like this.
1. Stephen Fleming
2. Steven Barry Smith
3. Stephen Cook
4. Stephen Smith
5. Steve Waugh
6. Steve Rhodes
7. Steve Rixon
8. Steven Finn
9. Stephen Boock
10. Steve Watkin
11. Steve Harmison
What do you think? Would they beat the Matt XI? I say that they would not.
1. Matt Hayden
2. Matt Elliott
3. Matt Renshaw
4. Mat Sinclair
5. Matt Maynard
6. Matt Wade
7. Matt Prior
8. Matthew Nicholson
9. Matt Henry
10. Matthew Hoggard
11. Matt Kuhnemann
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
I'm reminded of King Arthurs' final words to the Black Knight...
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
What a load of rubbish. How could you possibly *not* find a position for the greatest Steve of them all? Stevie Nicks.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
OT.... Very good piece on Jeremy Clarkson in the SMH t'other day Ben. As solidly constructed as a Dessie Haynes forward defence.
Wei Dogg
Roar Rookie
No love for Mike Whitney in the Michael XI? Special mentions for Michael Kasprowicz and Michael DiVenuto and dare I say it, Michael Slater
Choppy Zezers
Roar Rookie
Sick. And sweet as. And it'll need to be a series. And you know who has a major discrepancy between their test average and first class average? That's right, Martin Crowe
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
" ... I suspect I’ve spent far more time in under-grad and post-grad education than you" Extremely unlikely, as I have studied at tertiary institutions in both Germany and Indonesia. " ... I’m just not interested in skimming through your stuff ... " That's even more unlikely, as your previous response to me clearly picked out the stuff you wanted to pick out and respond to, although I highly suspect you actually read in full. In fact I know so.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
You Choppy. It's my replies to you that the roar is witholding in order to undermine me. No more cricket discussion with you until that changes. Not your fault, on that score, but that is the way it has to be.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
Seriously though, just after the second world war when I was at a cricket match I ran into none other than Albert Einstein - apart from the thrill of meeting such a non-cricketing legend, I was equally pleased that I was able to tell him with a glowing sense of achievement that I finally understood his theory of relativity. His response was "It's about time!"
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
Very accomplished first class player that should have read.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
Yeah Wood was a pretty good captain at shield level and a very accomplished first player too. Being a very good player of fast bowling he did play half his shield innings at the WACA and certainly no crime in that.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
The bowler's holding the batsman's willey.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Captained a Shield 3 peat.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Watson
The Bush
Roar Guru
Choppy, I love any article that drops in Bevan - I still think he's one of the great what ifs in test cricket history!
Choppy Zezers
Roar Rookie
The Bush, was he responding to me or to you? Oops. I think I quoted the wrong chronological list that didn't have the Waugh's. Ouch. I think it's time the ol Chop does an article. I'm a bit keen to do one using my own theory (already disproven) about rating players based on the difference between their test and first class averages. Michael Bevan. Sigh.
Choppy Zezers
Roar Rookie
Bernie, is this directed at me or The Bush? Dunno. Anyhoo I got a response about the whole Choppy/nous thing. And the list in chronological order is Victor Trumper, Don Bradman, Stan McCabe, Neil Harvey, Greg Chappell, Allan Border, Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist, Steve Smith.....and Ben Dwarshius. That's some grouse nous
The Bush
Roar Guru
Cool. You couldn’t work out the ever-so-light rib about Mark being best since Bradman was clearly said in sarcasm? I know how to skim read mate, I suspect I’ve spent far more time in under-grad and post-grad education than you, I’m just not interested in skimming through your stuff. Anyway I’m now genuinely done with this nasty, petty little exchange. It’s a free web, so you can comment if you want, but I’ll save my “close minded” engagement for other posters from now on.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
I am not communicating with you again until the roar STOP withholding my other relevant replies to you. It is sheer bullying, nothing else, when I am not allowed to respond to people such as yourself.
Choppy Zezers
Roar Rookie
Hey who is asking for the nous of Choppy? Here I am all noused up and ready to go. I'll have to check with my mate who has the copy at the mo, but from memory that list you mentioned sounds about right. I also think Dwarshius shamefully missed out, which is a tragedy of course.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
If you want to use the argument what people who supposedly know more than me said, well I can assure you there is no way any of Mark Taylor, Shane Warne, Ooh Aah or even Steve Waugh himself have ever purported the view that Steve was superior to Mark as a test batsman. You only have to listen to Mark Taylor’s speech at Mark Waugh’s induction into Australian cricket’s hall of fame. I know for a fact that their father also holds no such views, and I am pretty sure their late mother wouldn’t have either. Shane Warne and Ian Chappell may be twisted in their post-1999 views on Steve Waugh, but both rated Mark higher prior to that – in fact in Warne’s first autobiography, 1996, he actually said he thought Steve was a superior captain to Taylor, and the year before that had even said that he rated Mark Waugh the best batsman in the world, and at that same hall of fame induction he named Mark Waugh as his favourite cricketer, and his glowing endorsement backed up precisely everything I say. Then there is Hansie Cronje, captain of Australia’s most likely challenger for the number 1 test and one day team in the 1995-99 period: after the Saffies unsuccessful quest to dethrone us in 1997 and early 98 he said “To beat Australia, you have to beat the Waugh twins.” He didn’t even mention Warne or Ooh Aah, he considered the Waughs – EQUALLY – as their biggest stumbling block. As for everyday fans, of varying degrees of knowledge along the spectrum, there is an equal number who bag Steve, in favour of Mark, as there are fans who bag Mark – and both lots of ignoramuses use the well-worn, nasty, ridiculous stereotypes about each. So don’t purport this rubbish that everybody thinks Steve was better. You also totally, in complete ignorance without basis, miss-represented me claiming that I think Mark is the best batsman since Bradman – I have never said any such thing. In fact, I don’t even subscribe to the ‘Bradman indisputable greatest’ rhetoric. Perhaps the one who calls himself Choppy Zesers could show a touch of nous and back me up on that one by citing the very end of the very last chapter of my book (24) prior to the token 40-page chapter on one day cricket. I only name the top dozen Australian test batsmen, and half a dozen top one day Aussie bats, in chronological order ONLY, I do not rank them any other way, and this has Bradman listed second, and BOTH Waughs listed equal seventh (7th). Also, if you want any credibility whatsoever ascribed to you, don’t accuse somebody of manipulating stats after their latest post has listed, in chronological order, every single score over a five-year period, and then simply done the regular traditional method of presenting overall raw statistics – and indeed mainly to appease tunnel vision fans such as yourself. No, I DIDN’T know how the precise numbers would turn out, but I did know that when leaving out the 6 of 53 tests for the period involving a p-ss weak Sri Lanka, and far from world beating New Zealand, Mark would match Steve for raw numbers in any case simply because with the opposition much stronger, more was needed more often, and on a match-by-match basis, Steve DID NOT outperform Mark, either in consistency in passing 50 OR INDEED going onto centuries when needed. Mark DOES belong among cricket’s elite test batsman – you can’t be one of two star batsmen in the dominant team in cricket’s strongest era and not be (among the all-time elite). I am completely unconcerned as to how you feel about length of posts: maybe learn how to skim and scan and then to read deeper should something happen to perk your interest – these are fundamental everyday academic skills. In any case, the length of my previous post was mainly on account of the list of batting scores IN THEIR ENTIRETY with NOTHING LEFT OUT and yet you continue to accuse me of manipulation simply because you don’t like the results. No matter what you claim, you are not an open-minded person who is willing to alter his views in the face of overwhelming evidence, hence the very fitting quote that I used. You say “I will hear a case for Neil Harvey” but then when presented with a water tight, open and shut case for someone else, you allow your churlish prejudices to get in the way and continue to insist that day is night. I shan’t be going out of my way to keep indulging you in the coming future. Finally, before whining about perceived condescension, how about you refrain from making obnoxious ill-informed comments about how somebody does or doesn’t do their job which is entirely unrelated to this forum in any case. I don’t have to justify my work performance to you in any way shape or form, but if you really must know, I have lasted more than 20 years in teaching, in one form or another, and enjoyed a positive rapport with 99.94% of students, and the same applies to players in my 16 years, summer and winter, of cricket umpiring in Brisbane.