Still don’t think you are right about the bowlers in particular. In 1907-08, those that played with Rhodes who didn’t feature in 1905 included Barnes – no joke there – and Fielder and Crawford who had played in the immediately preceding series in England vs South Africa, plus Blythe. Hirst was past it by 1907, wasn’t that great shakes as a bowler. But I’m not sure who else would have toured instead of him, Rhodes and Fielder in 1903. Lockwood was out of favour as a tourist after his poor tour in 1894-95, was plagued by injury and poor form by 1903.

Renato, thanks for the detailed reply. You obviously know your stuff having written a lot about Trumper, and clearly his stroke play ability to score quickly marked him out as special. But I still don’t have a clear idea what the table is, and how you come up with the figures. Some of them are adjusted in some way and the matches chosen are selective. You say he had this great measure of consistency scoring above 65 a lot, but the stats show that in Tests in England he didn’t. A glance at the 1905 tour doesn’t explain why these matches should be omitted. A couple of the England scores weren’t that big, and in others Australia needed its batsmen to do well in reply to avoid defeat. In one Test they failed to do so twice and lost by an innings. You are wrong in saying few of the top England bowlers toured Australia and even you weren’t, it doesn’t help the argument, given he did so much worse in England than Australia. I’m always happy to hear and learn more why Trumper was special but not sure this does the trick.

Exact quote. “You must remember that the West Indians, these guys, if they get on top are magnificent cricketers. But if they’re down, they grovel, and I intend, with the help of Closey and a few others, to make them grovel.“
Talk about I’ll-chosen words. And with the help of Closey? One of the great mismatches to watch on YouTube is the 45 year old close taking on Holding and co. Very brave but not exactly a trump card.

Bit of hyperbole to say Greig cut an extraordinary figure- just a couple of inches taller than most. But pretty rare for a batsman so tall to bat that well. He is definitely the best really tall batsman, although Lloyd was the best very tall batsman, if it’s possible to make that distinction. Seems to be a slight disadvantage in picking up the ball. Alan Knott was only tiny compared to Greig. Stood at 5’8”.

Think Suleiman Benn gets it for height, if not quality.

I think Richie Robinson might take the prize for tallest keeper, though from memory only played a couple of tests as a specialist batsman.

A fine tribute to a great player and figure in the game. Definitely a candidate for one of the best openers of all time. I would nitpick, however, at the idea that Wes Hall was still a feared monster in 1971. Hall was almost dropped for the ‘68-69 tour of Australia because the selectors thought he was past it. Sobers fought to keep him in but he proved he was past it on that tour and retired soon after. The Windies pace attack in 1971 with the likes of Dowe, Shillingford and Holder was possibly the weakest they ever put on the field.

Just on the question about whether England’s best players toured Australia in the Golden Age. That was true of the 1880s and one or two of the top amateurs later like FS Jackson. But doesn’t hold for the bowlers in Trumper’s era – 1899-1912. The bowlers who toured Australia most and took the most wickets were the same that did best for England at home – Barnes, Rhodes, Hirst, Blythe, Braund, and Foster when he came on the scene in 1911. I’m not sure who else would have been selected ahead of them. Four of the top five averages for the county season immediately prior to the 1903-04 tour were Rhodes, Blythe, Barnes and Hirst. The fifth never played a Test. In 1907, Blythe and Rhodes were again near the top of the averages along with Fielder who toured Australia with Barnes, Blythe, Braund and Rhodes the following summer.

It’s a good point Paul. Some statisticians would use measures of consistency, or how players fared in tight situations. But it’s no good throwing your wicket away when you’re under 50, and Trumper got out for a hell of a lot of low scores. I’d be interested to see evidence that he was guided in Test matches by the need to give someone else a bat rather than the state of the game. In his highest score of 214* vs SA was a not out (he batted at no.5) because he batted to the end as Australia was chasing a big SA total (they fell just short).

Yes it was a real pity he took up in England, Windies need all the help we can get. Not sure whether it was a mistake from his point of view. Too bad England relaxed the residency rule that deters poaching of players with second passports, but the fault seems to lie in part with the Windies management for not nurturing him when he was at Under-19s – at least, that’s Jofra’s version. But his pace seems to be well down from the Ashes, from the glimpses I saw in the first Test. Pace is only good if it’s quick, ask Jeff Thomson. Archer wasn’t bowling much faster than Anderson, same in the NZ series.

It would be great if they could tour again and acquit themselves reasonably well. Good to see that a tour has been pencilled in for 2022-23, according to Jeff’s post. I’m not sure they have the batsmen to put up the scores necessary to escape another thumping, especially if they don’t have many warm up matches. It’s great that the bowling has improved, but I suspect not enough. Australia’s bowling has improved since 2015 – Cummins and Starc didn’t play, and Lyon has improved. Amazing to see Voges’ figures- 2 innings, 375 runs, no outs = no average!

It’s an interesting discussion but I’m not sure I follow the rationale and method. First why confine to 1900- 06 – his Test average for this period (36) is lower than his overall average. Did he miss any series in ‘06-‘07? Also what do these matches represent – all matches he batted in during the period against the teams mentioned- England, certain county teams plus SA? But why SA – their standard was weak at this time? And why include a single match vs Western Province? But only one Test innings from the 1905 series is listed, whereas Trumper played all 5 and finished with the dismal average of 17.6, not even one 50.

About 22 innings are listed with only one not out with an asterisk, but the bottom line says their were only ten dismissals. Does this mean that if Trumper was not out at the end of the session, he is given a not out at the end of it?? But these seem to be the totals, not the scores at the end of the session. And what is the score of 222 listed for 1903-04? Trumper’s highest score vs England was 185* in this period.

I gather we are comparing just the first session in a first innings? Trumper certainly averaged well batting first in Tests in those years – 46.4 – but less so in the first innings when Australia batted second- only 27.5. His first innings average against England was 34.2, almost identical to his averages batting in the second innings.

I feel I am missing something very fundamental here. I didn’t follow the sentence-“ Trumper’s scores in the first session of the first innings (approximately 65-plus)“. Is this something about the run rate?

As for the following statement, it opens up a whole new can of worms: “England’s best players rarely, if ever, visited the colonies and this is effortlessly verified by the respective performances abroad: eight wins versus 17 defeats.“. I’m afraid it will take a lot more effort than that. We would start by looking at who were the best England players – and the bowlers in particular, which is most relevant for Trumper – and see whether they toured. Happy to have that debate, but I think we might find the answer is that sometimes one or two didn’t tour during Trumper’s era, but certainly not rarely or never.

Trumper was no doubt a great player, who played some great innings, but I feel unenlightened as to why he remains “unrivalled as the greatest”. I also take some account of the ICC retrospective rankings which look at cumulative recent form prior to a certain date, and account for factors such as strength of opposition bowlers. Clem Hill ranks first in the world for 8 out of 9 years between 1902 and 1910. Trumper ranks at number 2 on only a couple of occasions.

I discovered that ESPN’s statsguru can list all players in history according to their highest scores – so after skipping a few pages of centurions, you come to those under 100.

PS South African keeper Jock Cameron from the ‘30s was considered one of their best and a good batsman- averaged 30. Probably comes into consideration with Tallon for the keeper’s spot.

I think the bowling line up might be optimised with Pakistani medium pacer Sarfraz Nawaz as 4th bowler. Also, many would put Don Tallon up among Australia’s best ever keepers – Don Bradman certainly thought so – maybe deserves a place ahead of Taylor. And for a team of underachievers, who better to captain than Mike Brearley? Some honourable mentions – Bruce Laird, Rusi Surti, Norman Yardley, Keith Boyce, Tommy Andrews, Michael Bevan.

It’s a tax dodge? Or just a plaything?

Rich owners that hate money? Is that a typo or am I missing something here?

Sure, fair point MK. I was exaggerating a bit, it’s really all those scrums that end in a kick at goal from 40 metres out when one prop falls over that drive me bananas.

I think someone suggested making the golden point only work if you score a try, I.e. so people don’t just play in the hope of a penalty goal, which is the bane of rugby anyway. I would suggest also allowing for field goals, which are at least the product of constructive team play and not reliant on an opponent slipping over in a scrum or misjudging entry into a ruck or refereeing error.

Absolutely right, awarding penalties for scrum dominance is just about the dumbest thing in rugby, especially when allied with its ugly cousin, the penalty kick at goal from anywhere on the field.

You are right, Steven, I think I speak for many Roarers in saying that I couldn’t give a flying proverbial if the English selectors get it right? Indeed, I tend to pray for the opposite. But it’s still an interesting topic for discussion. Don’t think you’re right about Stokes – a Test batting average of 37 – similar to Keith Miller’s career – is more than adequate In the top six for an all rounder whose bowling averages is about the same as Brett Lee, Geoff Lawson or Andrew Flintoff’s. The logic of needing two all rounders is misguided. Seem to be asking the right question about Crawley, based on stats, though didn’t he top score for England? Pope looks like a find for the future even if he failed in this match. And you are definitely right about the Windies batting- it is mediocre, and the bowlers aren’t world beaters.

I had no idea what the reference to Ed Smith was about.

I’m surprised Healy hasn’t been mentioned. I didn’t see Taber but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone around the world to rival Healy against both pace and spin since 1970 apart from Alan Knott. My choice in slips would be Simpson, Taylor, M.Waugh, G Chappell and Mallett at gully. G Chappell was outstanding. Ponting made more mistakes than these guys, but easily commands cover. Starc definitely a better fielder than McGrath, as was Thommo I think. Probably McDermott and Hughes too.

Thanks Julian. Good points. I don’t have ready answers on each, as had to use a fair bit of rule of thumb to identify which teams had a chance of being near the top, and calculations were a bit painstaking. Suffice to say there were no other teams I could see in the 1948 or 1984 eras mentioned who mustered 6 or 7 batsmen averaging around 40 and above after a decent number of Tests. In the latter 2000s both England and India managed 5 or 6, as did South Africa a few years later, but the totals werent quite as good as the Aussies of 2002 or 2006. India probably had the next best lineup at one point- Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly, Dhoni.

Think you’re right about both 1943-44 and SA. That SA team almost certainly would have been the best in the 70s, but could have had some grand battles with the Australians, and the Windies later on.

Good call AllDay, maybe I should doublecheck how the 1913-14 English side would have totalled. I got a similar differential – 145 – for the SA team in the third Test in 1970. Spinner Traicos in particular and along with Bacher and Lance brought down the numbers. (And Irvine and Traicos only had 3 tests then). Of course, you could have a great team with 8 or 9 very good players and a couple of lesser lights. 1974-77 Aussies might be in this category too. I guess mine was looking at something a bit different, a kind of perfection from 1-11.