Aus cricket hall of fame: nine hall of famers played cricket in 67/70 and six of them played in those tests. Six famers played cricket in 1902 and three in 1921. Eight famers played in 1961 although I am not sure if all were in the same tests. What I can say is that the 67/70 had the highest or equal highest number of Hof players in their team and was therefore as good as or better than 1902 six , 1921 three and 1961 eight teams. Only the Bradman era had more hof players.

Point 16: Sheek to understand the background to SA cricket you need to read Fezela cricket tour. Lindsay was an integral part of the rebuilding of SA cricket. As were Barlow, Bland, and P Pollock. They in turn inspired the younger Pollock, Richards and Procter. Lindsay is the wk with the latter 3 plus Goddard. The first three are all reserves and are in the second x1. Add Tayfield and Faulkner and Nourse from the past. Add another Pollock. Bring in newbies Kallis, AB de V and Steyn

Point 15: playing spin or leg spin. Among the six bowlers that B Richards faced was spinner Tony Lock. Richards hit him for 100 of 9 overs which is a strike rate of almost 200. Richards according to Ashley Mallett used the full range of batting strokes and was untroubled. Similarly Lindsay as a young cricketer in 1961 hit five consecutive 6s off Essex county’s leg spinner. Essex being a premier county side. In his demolition of Australia in 66/67 Lindsay also used the full range of strokes all hitting the middle of the bat. Lindsay came from a cricket and wk family. Just like the pollocks he was cricket royalty. He had unquestionable batting ability on a level not far off that of Richards and Pollock. The high level of performance he achieved in batting and wk was unequalled by Gilchrist in a much longer career with more opportunities. Lindsay was one of SAs big 4 which is well known by my generation and by my elders.

Point 14 I would consider Neil Harvey and Doug Walters at 4 and 5. Walters as best batting all rounder gives Oz an additional bowling option similar to Kallis but perhaps not as good. Harvey scored 21 centuries from 79 matches whereas Border scored 27 centuries from 158 matches. To match Harvey, border Should have 42 centuries. But whoever is chosen G Pollock is much better and AB de V or KP are equal.

My comments: 1. Barry Richards superior to Hayden 2. Graeme Smith = Arthur Morris. Australia has more left hand open bats than right. A weakness. Might have to include Simpson? I have kept Greg Chappell and Border but there are many alternatives of much the same, Graeme Pollock is greater than Chappell, AB de V = AB. Keith Miller has to be the bowling all rounder at 7. There is no other alternative. There are many options for WK. Bradman chose Don Talon. Ian Healey is probably the best wk but both Healy and Talon are modest batters. Adam is best batter but probably weakest wk who would be first choice for ODI. Marsh somewhere between Adam and Healy. I think we have to choose the best test wk which is Healy. Warne selected over Grimmett. Lillee and Oreilly selected a supported by the Don. Lindwall probably better than MacGrath but we want a fast medium with control. Okay so no change in bowlers from your selection but still problem weak batting and long tail. Have to choose Gilchrist to counter long tail even though not best wk. My only change is two left openers. So maybe I have to go with your combination. Back to square one. Still many options for 4 and 5. Doug Walters was best Oz batting all rounder. Even with changes I can’t improve your Oz team and still gets beaten by best SA team for reasons explained.

Point 14 the Australian team. I never rated Lawry and Simpson highly and not did Don Bradman. I am going with;
Matt Hayden,
Arthur Morris*
Don Bradman,
Greg Chappell?
Alan Border?
*Don Talon/ Rod Marsh / Ian Healey / Adam Gilchrist,
Keith Miller,
Shane Warne/ clarrie Grimmett*
Dennis Lillee *,
Bill Oreilly*,
Glen MacGrath/ Ray Lindwall*,
These are Bradmans seven in best world team*
? Means There are many alternatives for 4 and 5 Bradman didn’t select any that he thought worthy of selection

Point 13 The South African test players of 1960s had to take annual leave from their employers in order to play test cricket. There are known cases where employers were reluctant to grant leave. Certainly the employers would not have granted leave for preparation for provincial games. And there was no overhead lighting in those day’s. So there was minimum preparation for provincial games other than the game’s themselves. Test cricket had better training and preparation with better results although against stronger adversaries but the best cricketers like Lindsay Pollock Barlow were able to capitalise on the test preparation with bigger scores. G Pollock is another who was never a professional cricketer.

Point twelve you are misleading yourself with first class averages. These days test cricketers hardly play any first class games at state or province level. Their test averages are their first class averages and do they are automatically the same. This was not the case before ODI replaced first class cricket for national players. Bradmans first class average was 95. Test averages can be higher because of the greater preparation and motivation and training. In Lindsays provincial game’s he would have just turned up for the province game with no preparation. Also with SA isolation and few Tests the ratio of test scores in first class average would have been much lower and a greater variation in test and first class must be expected with a higher test average than province.

Point 11 If you dont like Bland as the reserve for #5, I can replace him with Kevin Pietersen. Bland was a Rhodesian (Zimbabwe) when Rhodesia played as a province in SA Currie Cup. Pietersen is a born and bred Natal and South African cricketer who was denied a provincial spot on account of his race. After playing for England he was allowed to play for Natal, which makes little sense. So I include him as reserve to AB and possibly the preferred #5. Kevin and Lindsay will go on a six hitting spree. Yes i like that. Settles any argument about best team given Kevins record in winning Ashes.

Point 9
the SA first team can bat down to number 11 Dale Steyn/ Tayfield and the best SA team has overall a stronger batting lineup. B Richards is a stronger batter than his Aus equivalent and the same is true of G Pollock. The SA bowling all rounders strongly out bat the Australian bowlers who are weak batsmen for 8,9,10 and 11.
SAs number 11 (Steyn) is better than Aus number 8. MacGrath, Lillee, and O’reilly are all number 11 batsmen. The only comparable SA bowler is Alan Donald and he doesnt make the SA team. Graeme Smith, AB de Villiers, Lindsay and Procter are equivalent to their aussie counterparts. It is only Bradman that is superior to Kallis. On that understanding and basis SA wins. You cant undo the batting weakness of the Aussie bowlers without weakening the bowling. Point 10: SA is in fact able to field a very good 11 man all rounder team: Richards, Goddard, Kallis, G Pollock, Eddie Barlow, D Lindsay, M Procter, Faulkner, S Pollock, H Tayfield, D Steyn. All except Lindsay have test wickets from bowling. Lindsay could probably bowl and WK at the same time (only joking!)

point 8 Bacher et al + Rice would be shared between 2nd and third teams although some would be lower. Some of them are over hyped by people in Johannesburg, Pretoria and Western Cape. None of those cricketers are from Natal. Van der Byl is from Natal and like you i rate him highly, as possible second team and definately? makes third team with Donald. But there is also the post 1990 bowlers to consider, and Amla (Natal) among the batters and a place for the enterprising never say die Jonty Rhodes (Natal)

point 4 i havent included Bacher et al in my first team.
point 5 Seventeen man touring team (as per current Aus ashes team). I have three batters and three bowlers in reserve. They are Bats: Barlow all rounder who can substitute as opening bat or as allrounder #3 for Kallis or any other batsman or bowler. The only position he wont be used is as WK. The reserve wk is AB de V. but he is first choice #5
The other reserve batters are Nourse and Colin Bland.
The three reserve bowlers are Donald (for his speed), Faulkner/ S Pollock (one will play) and P Pollock.
Point 6 Australian reserves to your first team: Matt Hayden, Ian Healy wk, Ricky Ponting for batting. Brett Lee, Nathan Lyon, Graham MacKenzie for bowling. But you will know much better.
Point 7 although i have felt obliged to include Donald in my reserves, he would only make my third team: useless as a batter, hopeless at running between wickets, often off target, couldnt be used as new ball bowler too many times, lost the world cup when Klusener called for winning run, too close friends with Hansie Cronje. My second team fast bowlers are Peter Pollock and Neil Adcock with S Pollock fast medium / Faulkner as leg spin, and Barlow as medium bowler and opening bat.

Lindsay himself was never interested in stats but only on winning the Tests. You will find a very high win % and probably a 100% where he got big scores. He won games at a very high strike rate unlike others.
Point 3 Goddard is in my first team. He opened the batting and bowling for most of his career and captained SA. Arguably SAs top all rounder with Procter. Goddard is a better batter and a better bowler than Shaun Pollock. The fast medium bowling all rounder position at 7 or 8 is taken by Goddard. Shaun is the second choice and has the opportunity of playing if Faulkener is excluded. When comparing Goddards higher batting average than Shaun, bear in mind that Goddard made most of his runs in the more challenging role of opening bat against top nations Australia and England. Its a no brainer that Goddard is selected above Shaun.

Point 2 Lindsay. I followed both 66/67 and 70 test series for every ball bowled. Lindsay is unquestionably SAs best wicket keeper and WK Batter. He dominated all innings for both teams, by scoring the most runs 606 at the highest average 86.6 and making the most dismissals 24. Have a look at “HowSTAT! mostvruns and dismissals by wicketkeepers in Test Series. Lindsay is ranked 1 and Gilchrist 2. Nobody else comes close. These two are the worlds highest performing batsmen wk. Lindsay is also the best performing South African wk and arguably the world best based on byes. Australian experts say that Gilchrist is not any where near Australias best WK – they mostly prefer Ian Healy. So i think i am being generous in saying Lindsay = Gilchrist because Gilchrist has never achieved Lindsays level of performance, not even against much weaker countries and despite much more opportunity than Lindsay. I am ranking on ability not quantity of tests played. Also Lindsays test average at 6 and 7 was above 50. Lindsays first class averages are not relevant. He was a part time amateur cricketer and a full time professional dentist. Unlike Procter and Richards he was never a professional cricketer. We can only rank Lindsay on his proven ability. He is certainly number one in SA and I would argue #1 in the world.

Hi Sheek, The 75, 89, and 2001 Aus teams are not relevant to my comment which was that 67 & 70 Aus teams were among the best up to that time 1970. They couldnt possibly compare themselves to future teams not yet created. Lyon couldnt be in the team when he was not even born. There were at least six hall of fame Australian cricketers in the team. I will check hall of famers in 1902, 1921, and 1961 sides but the only hall of famers who are in your best ever Aus team that were not in the 66/70 side are Bradman, OBrien and Miller. So as i say six hall of famers (half the team) are in the 67/70 sides and the other five played a significant number of tests including off spinner Mallet your number three of all time. He would have been at least 2nd in 1970 and 2nd is certainly among the best Australian off spinners. I didnt say that the 67/70 Aus team had all the best players of all time. That was not true of even the SA team. So that makes 7 best Aus cricketers of all time.

I said up to 1970. Teams in 75, 80s and later were not relevant to the best or equal best comparison with 1970 team. They couldn’t compare themselves to future teams.
I will reply later to the other comments.

The fourth was Alan Connelly who was the leading wicket taking bowler in the 1968 cricket series in England. A fast bowler.
There were no weak players in the Aus team

Sheek, the 67:70 Aus team were among the very best ever fielded by Australia up to that time. They were surpassed only by Bradman’s team. The defeated Australian team contained six hall of fame cricketers in Simpson, Lawry, Ian Chappell, Doug Walters, Ian redpath, Graham Mackenzie plus AshleyMallett, one of the best spin bowlers, Brian Taber a well regarded wk. That’s eight. The other top three were Gleeson 29, Stackpole 43 and Sheehan 31 Tests. And another G with 29 tests. It was a very good team and the best in the world according to Lawry on arrival in South Africa. It’s very lame to say after their defeat that they were a weaker Australian team. They were equal to the best except for Bradmans team.

The Aus team contained Bob Simpson (66:67), Bill Lawry, Ian Chappell, Doug Walters, Brian Taber, Ashley Mallett, Graham Mackenzie, all of whom are counted among the greatest Australian cricketers. The only Aus team prior to 1970 which was greater than the 67/70 team were those teams containing Don Bradman.

Replace Clive Rice with Mike Procter as the 1980s cricketer. This team is now close to a real best ever except for the lack of Denis Lindsay.

Sheek, another way I would look at it would be to say that the batting advantage of B Richards and G Pollock matched the batting advantage of Don Bradman. There is synergy from having two. Bradman would need to form a partnership with every Aus from two to eleven. Whereas SA Could have three sets of partnership: one with Richards, one with Pollock, and the strongest between Pollock and Richards. This brings extra strength and survivability to the SA side whereas if Bradman falls then it’s quickly over. So let’s say the two top orders are in total evenly matched from one to six. But then South Africa has a significant batting advantage from seven to eleven which wins the match.

Hi Sheek
We don’t need an exact batting average for B Richards or Pollock. We know from Bradman and Mallet that B Richards was among the five greatest batters including Bradman. The other three were Aus left opener (40s ave) Sobers and Tendulkar. Sobers was chosen as all rounder, Tendulkar for his similarities to Bradman. I think you can say that Bradman ranked B Richards as at least the joint second best batter. Personally I think Richards would have maintained his 70s test average especially if he had batted with Pollock. As Chappell commented on their big partnership. Each was pushing the other to excel. This would also have boosted Pollocks average. Test averages can be much higher than first class because of the big occasion and the whole environment. So I think both their averages would have tended towards 70. Pollock was only 17 months older but was fortunate to debut 7 years earlier than Richards who was more than ready to debut in 1966. The quality of Richards in particular was seen close up by international cricketers but Pollock only played overseas on official tours. In SA he is ranked the highest above Richards but internationally we can measure him by saying that he was equal to Richards. Certainly both were above any of Simpson, Lawry, Chappells, Border or Gilchrist. We don’t even need precise stats to know that a South African best ever test team will have a batting advantage in Richards and Pollock and in SA bowling all rounders. Aus only batting advantage is in Don Bradman. Anything Gilchrist can do, Lindsay can do better, and did. We can get precise test stats for SA bowling all rounders and their total batting advantage tends to cancel out the batting advantage of that one supreme batter, the Don. Which leaves a batting win for SA through the batting of Richards and Pollock. The only question is the precise margin but in fact it would be multiplied by their partnership as observed by Chappell. It would be at least a thirty run advantage over Aus. So all in all my earlier comparison remains and South Africa win.

I appreciate your knowledge and wisdom. The 66/67 and 70 Aus teams key players such as Simpson and Lawry are included in your best ever Aus team. Others such as Ian Chappell, Graham McKenzie, Doug Walters, Ashley Mallett are equal to those who have been included. A majority of best ever Aus team could justifiably be drawn as above from 67/70 teams. Just add Bradman Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist. Doug Walters is probably best Aus batting all rounder the last time I looked. Mallet for oreilly, Ian for Greg, Mackenzie for Miller, Walters for AB could in fact improve the best ever team. Certainly it will improve the bowling. Taber was also a well regarded wk in the traditional sense of wk. SA has similarly added four newer stars in G Smith, Kallis, AB de V and Steyn. So as I say it is a rerun of a proxy 67/70s contest.
Aus:
Simpson
Lawry
Bradman
Greg or Ian
AB or Doug Walters
Gilchrist
Miller or Graham McKenzie
Shane Warne
Lillee
Oreilly or Ashley Mallet
McGrath

Sheek
Even Bill Lawry admitted in 2011 that his 1970 side was deservedly beaten 4:0 by a much better SA side and if there had been a 5th test it would have been 5:0. He makes no excuses but rather says that Richards Pollock and Procter were at the height of their powers. He ascribes the win to the quality of the SA side and makes no argument about Australia playing badly. He says Aus were beaten by a better team. Lawry is a great man. The Aus bowling line up in 1970 was strong : McKenzie 60 tests career fast, Connolly 29 tests fast, Mallett 38 tests spin = to Nathan Lyon, Gleeson 29 tests, a difficult leg spin, the famous Doug Walters 74 tests medium. This bowling line up was among the best that Australia has fielded. They were no pushovers as one of your correspondents alleges. As Lawry declared on arrival in SA they were the best team in the world (except for SA).

Sheek et al,
The best SA team outplays the best Aus team in all depts: batting, bowling, wk. I tried to think of ways to improve the competitiveness of the Aus team. First I would bring in Nathan Lyon as the spinner in place of OReilly but that will only marginally improve the bowling and batting. There are any number of opening batsmen but none of them are much better than Lawry and Simpson. Aus doesn’t have a Barry Richards. The same is true at 4 and 5. Many alternatives but much the same. Steve Smith has a high batting average but it’s boosted by games against weak test sides including SA in recent times. Steve Smiths true worth is shown in the recent ashes series. You could substitute him for Border? But Smiths batting has weaknesses. Aus need another genuine fast bowler but that would mean dropping Miller and weakening Aus batting even further. It is a deep trait that Aus best bowlers are weak batters. Even Cummins instead of Miller would weaken Australia batting. So I think we have to live with your Australia team as the best or near best ever side. But it will be defeated by SAs best.