posted Oct 20, 2010

I'd have McGrath as the first pick. An average of just over 20 over so many tests is a fine record.

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

Obviously Warne and O'Reilly are certainties so that leaves two from three for the quicks.

Lindwall is a stand-out and, for me, McGrath just shades it from Lillee for the second spot

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

I don't think there is any need for both Tiger and Warne so I would pick three pace men.

McGrath
Turner
Lindwall / Davidson

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

Always thought that if you're able to have a 5 man attack, which Miller allows you to, it's better to go with 3 seamers and two spinners, so, like paul, I'd go with Lindwall and McGrath to compliment Miller and also pick both O'Reilly and Warne.

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

I'd would rather have four pace men rather than two spinners as I just don't see the need to have 50 or so overs of spin in either England or Australia and on top of that I think you should pick you 5 best bowlers.

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

Reckon leg-spin can be a very important and dangerous weapon in both Oz and England, as the history of the Ashes shows.
And I also reckon that both Warne and O'Reilly are probably among the best 5 bowlers Australia have ever produced.
At the time of his death in 1992, Don Bradman refferred to O'Reilly, a guy who he'd never really got on with, as 'The best bowler I ever played or saw'.

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

I would always pick the 5 best bowlers chop, which is why Warne and O'Reilly are certs

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

A single leg spinner can be just as dangerous as two of them really, and for example Turner took just the same number of wickets as Tiger but at a better average and far better strike rate so statistically at leas he would be a better option for bowling out a team than Tiger.

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

Paul, I don't agree that Tiger is one of the five best Ashes bowlers Lillee played ten more tests took 67 more wickets at a significantly better strike rate and average than Tiger, surely he is thereforE a better option for a bowler in the series than Tiger ever was regardless of the balance in the team.

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

chop

Could I humbly suggest you compare the succession of very average batsmen against whom Lillee played to those whom Tiger encountered.

I would go so far as to say that, were I the sole selector of the cricinfo all-time xi, O'Reilly would be in it. Just my humble opinion

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

Paul, as I have mentioned many times I don't really take inter era comparisions all that seriously, but firstly I would enver sellect two spinners for a test in England or Australia unless for example we had created a 50s style dust bowl at Old Trafford again for some reason, secondly I don't think Tiger adds as much to a team than a forth pacer would simply because I see no reason for having 50 overs of spin and I think bowlers such as Lillee and Davidson would make more impact to the match, Finally while I agree Tiger is on of the best spinners to ever play the game I just don't fathom the need for him unless instead of Warne.

Oh and if you are going to bring up batsmen need I point out the spin friendly tracks of the 30s

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

Without going to cricinfo, I think Hobbs was gone by the time O'Reilly made his debut but Sutcliffe did play in 1934. Add in Hammond, Hutton, Compton, Leyland, Paynter and a few others. I would suggest that all of those and a couple more were all better players than any single English batsman against whom Lillee played, with Boycott, Gooch and Gower being the only real challengers to that theory

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

"comment by Choppingwood (U14203432)
posted 9 Minutes Ago

Paul, I don't agree that Tiger is one of the five best Ashes bowlers Lillee played ten more tests took 67 more wickets"

????? Lillee played 70 tests, O'Reilly only 27

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

Hoggy Lillee did not play 70 Ashes Tests.

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

I like two spinners and three quicks in any team, chop, no more than that. I think far too much is made of "soinning" tracks, good spinners are effective in any conditions, particularly later in any Test, irrespective of venue. Great spinners get wickets anywhere. I've seen too many easy-paced wickets over all the years i've been watching to believe that a 4/1 split is the right combination anywhere

Not sure where you get the notion of spin-friendly tracks of the 30's either. They were either batting featherbeds but lacking in pace or rain-affected stickies where medium pacers were just as effective. I doubt O'Reilly ever played on a dustbowl in his life

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

Of course, you could always add the notion that, in seam-friendly conditions or on a track with real pace, then three top-class quicks are more than enough and a fourth could be largely redundant/superfluous.......

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

Tracks in ther thirties were certainlt more spin friendly than those of today are because they deteriorated to a greater extent than those of today and that is with out bringing in the stickies which were far more friendly to bowling than anything of these days, but thats only if you want to make batsmen a deciding factor.

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

"comment by Choppingwood (U14203432)
posted 2 Minutes Ago

Hoggy Lillee did not play 70 Ashes Tests."

You're correct.
According to cricinfo Lillee played 24 Ashes tests taking 128 wickets:

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/6295.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;orderby=default;template=results;trophy=1;type=bowling

O'Reilly, meanwhile, played 19 Ashes tests, taking 102 wickets, meaning that, if my calculations are correct, he took wickets in Ashes tests at the same, if not a slightly higher, rate as Lillee.

"comment by paullakesknees (U13254364)
posted Just Now

Of course, you could always add the notion that, in seam-friendly conditions or on a track with real pace, then three top-class quicks are more than enough and a fourth could be largely redundant/superfluous......."

It's also got to be considered that Steve Waugh has already been chosen as one of the batsmen, which means you already have a reasonable 4th seamer in the side.

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

I would say that "extremes of pitch" are the exception rather than the rule and any historical lessons suggest that the majority of Tests have been played on good wickets which offer early help to quickies, get better for batting a little later and tend to break up, admittedly to varying degrees, late in the game. In those "average) conditions I would rather have two spinners than an additional seamer every time.

As for the 30's, there were a lot of huge scores made, timeless Tests which lasted longer than five days etc etc

One of three things must have been the case...(a) bowlers were rubbish (b) wickets were good and lasted (c) batsmen were top class.

If it's (a) that casts doubt on a lot of collective perceived wisdom and if it's (b) or (c) it suggests my original premise was close to the truth....

| complain about this comment

posted Oct 20, 2010

Hoggy, he didn't take them at the same rate though, but at both a significantly higher average and strike rate.

If you want to count Steve Waugh as an extra bowler then I see no point in playing an extra bowler either quick or spinner at all, take an extra batsman. Though saying that Steve Waugh wasn't a particularly reasonable fourth bowler at all, I don't Paul and I are going to see eye to eye on this I would rather have four quicks and a spinner rather than two spinners unless you were playing in very spin freindly conditions

| complain about this comment