Or we could just pick an opener and Green has to wait until?

I’d just go Khawaja, Harris, Labuschagne, Smith, Head and Webster.

If Labuschagne keeps failing, we can look at Green for the Windies, at either 3 or 4, depending on Smith. None of this is ideal, but honestly, outside of Harris, no one is really building a case in country cricket.

If England weren’t so hopeless in Australia, I’d have genuine concerns about this upcoming summer.

I have to laugh at the suggestion that his FIVE YEAR STRUGGLE is about “form”. To be so bad for so long is not about form. Kohli’s test career is a three part story; 4 years of good, five years of great and five years of dross.

But an amazing competitor, great fielder, good leader and epic white ball batter. A modern day great. If he is retired from tests will be interesting to see if him and Sharm seriously try to play on in ODI cricket

Interestingly he was recorded in an interview in 2023 saying he was 14, turning fifteen then, which apparently puts him at 16 right now.

Even if his true age is 16, this is still an out-of-this-world performance and he’s on track to be one of the greatest players ever.

I know we all develop at different times, but I’m skeptical that he’s 14, especially when he was on the radar as being able to do this for the last year… so apparently since he was 13…

Pakistani players have often been claimed to be 15 or 16 on debut and it’s proven to be untrue, so there is history in this regard.

It does give off the same vibes as when I played rugby in high school and the Pacific Islander kids were all apparently 14… but had to shave before the games started…

I reckon this could be the end for Maxwell, he also had a forgettable 2024 IPL from memory?

We all have bad runs, but two bad seasons in a row, at his age, means he’s probably done.

Doesn’t mean his career is over, there’s plenty of lower tier tournaments he can play in, BBL of course, but also PSL, Caribbean etc.

It’s simple; Green wasn’t in the side for the Pakistan series. Warner retired and Green was picked for two tests against the Windies. He’s not an injury replacement or something.
How could he be dropped “well before New Zealand” if he’d only been back in the team for two tests?

Green has hardly dominated at FC level in the past fwe years.

This is factually incorrect.

Firstly, he didn’t play the Shield at all in 2022-23. He didn’t play last summer either due to injury. So the only season you could be talking about is 2023–24 in which he only played tow games. Scored a century and a fifty, was averaging 102 from those two games. So he totally dominated in his limited FC opportunities across the last three summers.

His record in Tests, which is first class cricket, is poor – 13 innings, 405 runs with one score over 50. Take out that one score and he shouldn’t be in consideration, let alone in the Test side.

Who’s record are you talking about? Green has 1,377 runs at 36 with multiple centuries and fifties.

If you were talking about some apparent two year period, which period? Across 2023-24, two calendar years, he played 17 innings and scored over 500 runs with two centuries.

Graeme Hick killed first class attacks. Scored 138 centuries, averaged over 52 in FC cricket, yet when it came to Tests, could only score 6 tons in 114 innings at an average of 31. I’m hoping Green doesn;t follow this path.

Let’s hope so, but there’s no reason not to be far more optimistic. Green already has two away centuries – Hick’s career total – and his test average is 5 runs higher. There’s nothing to suggest he’ll end up with such a poor record.

He’d only just been brought back into the side two tests earlier, so he couldn’t be ‘redropped’. Do you mean to say that if he wasn’t such a favourite, he’d have never been re-selected again?

Yes it’s the old chicken and egg isn’t it – was England’s batting really that good circa 1930-50, or was it more the case that Australia’s bowling was weak. Even on the spin front, from memory Grimmett and O’Reilly’s careers only overlapped for a short period, about 4 years (’32-’36)?

This is why I always think the best starting point is to look at how someone compares to their peers. For example, it’s a reason why I don’t think Ponting has a better claim to “best since Bradman”, than either Smith or Chappell, because he played in an era when averaging over 50 was common place; Lara, Chanderpaul, Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Hayden, S Waugh, Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, Yousuf and so on. In contrast, Chappell had Richards and I think that’s about it. Border only had Gavaskar, Miandad and Richards. Smith only has Root and Williamson (Kohli has dropped way off).

Australia does seem, overall, to have been blessed with better bowlers than England, hence why we have mostly been the best team for the last century…

That’s an interesting point, but I think the issue with England is that half their “best ever XI” is taken up by guys who played pre-WWII at a time when it’s hard to get a real gauge on things.

Bradman makes Australia’s, because he so clearly was unlike anyone else.

But despite impressive records, only McCabe is ever seriously discussed as being an elite batsman. Goods like Ponsford and Woodfull are usually dismissed, despite boasting impressive FC records and big averages. Before that, only Trumper is considered an all time player.

Meanwhile, England are often held to the premise that Sutcliffe, Hobbs and Hammond are ‘musts’, while Barnes and Grace are already in the team. But the time the fifties are done, Hutton is probably in the side. So you’ve filled out half the team.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of that. While Bradman stands out as the clear outlier, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that between 1925 and 1955, the following English players are all in the top ten highest batting averages for them; Sutcliffe, Paynter, Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton, Tyldesley and Compton. Clearly batting was easy in this period and it’s not right that all these guys make it in.

I don’t have the knowledge or inclination to do this, but I think it’s silly that all of Hammond, Hobbs and Sutcliffe make it in, even worse if Hutton also does.

If you remove a few of these guys and try it a bit more objectively (i.e. compare players to their peers), I think there’s a very real argument to be made that Root gets in – even now he’s ninth on their averages – 152 tests at 50 is crazy. If you ignore his lack of a century in Australia, I think Root has a good case to make it into their best ever side. Pietersen should at least be in the debate as the best batsman of his generation.

If we are looking at the ‘last fifty years’, then wouldn’t Botham be in for a shout? And Knott is potentially their keeper right? He was playing as late as 1981, so in the last fifty years.

I suppose it’s true to say that they really haven’t had much in the way of bowlers since Willis and nothing like the guys they had before that (Bedser, Statham, Snow and so on).

You do realise that Britain is three times as large as Australia? 68m v 26m

Considering County Cricket is full of foreign players, to the point were I assume something like 2 out of every 11 is taken up by imports, there’s no particular reason why the standard should be less than the Shield which is a third of the size.

I don’t think it’s that straight forward and there are issues, but people lay into County Cricket way too much.

You’re right, he certainly seems to be anointed for sure

If you could point me in the direction of the other guys averaged 47 in FC cricket who is 25, I’ll happily go and check them out.

I’ll wait.

Mate I already know it now, I’m the child of Boomers and I’ve spent my whole adult life trying to survive, and improve, the dumpster fire of a society they’ve built

Really interesting statistics there on Hughes. Although I knock him elsewhere in this thread, because I do think for the exercise here you have to take a player based on their record, it is yet another piece of evidence that Hughes’ career could have been so much more.

It’s not how life works, but gee you gotta feel for the selectors sometimes. In the early 1980s, the batting must have seemed like it would be fine in a post-Chappelle world. Hookes was only 30 in 1985, Border 30 as well, Hughes only 31 in 1985, Wessels was even younger, only 28 in ’85.

If you’re a selector, surely you look at these four guys, in their prime years, and think that everything is going to be fine. But instead, poor Hughes disintegrates, Hookes never fulfills his talent and Wessels grows so disillusioned, he just quits. No wonder Border got the $hit$, left to pick up the pieces.

Thanks for the kind words Bernie, much appreciated.

After I hit reply on my response to you, I did get a bit lost in thought about all these openers – you’re right that Wood probably doesn’t fit and so the challenge is to find a middle-order player.

The problem with the Boomer generation and ODIs is that so few were played until much later in many of their careers.

As we’ve both acknowledged, Hughes ODI record is really modest, though is SR isn’t too bad for his generation, but not good enough to go close to making up for his poor average.

It’s now a really interesting thought and not an area of the game I’m that across. I look through the list of top ODI run scorers for Australia throws up some interesting thoughts. For example, Wayne Phillips played 48 games in the 80s, only averaged 24, so same as Hughes, but struck at 85, which is lightening compared to his contemporaries. What I don’t know is where he batted in the order?

Surely Hughes doesn’t make the ODI side, his record is bog average. What about Wood or Wessels?

I don’t know if I’ve ever been considered utterly charming, but that would certainly be the goal!

Yeah this is why it’s fun; but absurd. Taylor, Healy, the Waughs and Warne are all clearly a “generation”

You criticise me for using averages, but you don’t actually point out why.

I don’t even mention Warner, I actually mentioned Labuschange and conceded that the Boomers still took out the top order.

There’s no point mentioning Mallett, he wasn’t in the side and, as you say, Lyon wins out.

We can sit here and talk about “what ifs” for Thommo, but then I could do that for any player. Imagine if Cummins didn’t have early back troubles, imagine if Warner and Smith hadn’t been banned, imagine if Clarke had a different back, imagine if WSC didn’t happen.

The facts are that Thommo had a summer or two that people obsess over, but beyond that his career was not that great. Over a decade Hazlewood has taken more wickets at a far superior average. Why exactly do you say Hazlewood’s average is not deserved?

Ultimately I was simply defending my generation, there exercises are simply opinion. No one can be right and I’m not going down with the ship on any point.

Hey mate,

Yes the Australian population certainly has kept on growing and I suppose in theory more kids are therefore available to play cricket. But do they? Certainly not as a proportion of the population.

I’m in the middle of the Bar Course, transitioning from being a lawyer to a barrister, so I’m in lockdown right now for a few more weeks yet. Once I’m on the other side of that, I’m going to shoot out another article. Probably one looking at who should be selected for the WTC Final, but I think I might also have another go at the ODI side as well, now that the CT is out of the way and transition is very much on the cards.

As one of the few Gen Ys who regularly posts here, I feel a need to back in my generation a bit.

I know you old timers love to day dream about a summer or two when Lillee and Thomson destroyed the world, before the Windies managed to actually do it for about 15 years, I think there’s a lot of rose-tinted glasses going on here.

I won’t dispute that Gen X wins. But I don’t think the Boomer side – despite have an entire five more years of players to pick from! – is better than the Gen Y team.

Bowlers win games, so lets look at the bowlers:

It’s not clear to me on what planet Yardley would be comparable to Lyon? Surely we’re all in agreement that the best spinner after Warne in this three generations is Lyon? So that’s a tick to the Millennials.

Next up we have the quicks; Hughes took 212 wickets at 28.38. Thomson took 200 wickets at 28. These are the realities of their statistics. Both guys bowled in an era when there were guys like Marshall (20.94), Willis (25.2), Khan (22.81), Garner (20.97), Holding (23.68), Hadlee (22.29).

Honestly, their records don’t really hold up well at all in that company. Meanwhile Hazlewood has 279 wickets at 24.57. He might not have the character of either of those to guys, but his record is far superior. It’s always hard to judge across generations, but here I think he wins. Johnson is less clear cut, his average puts him in the same bracket, but Starc could replace him and he’s taken 382 wickets at 27.57, so averages less than both Hughes and Thomson.

I’m not going to get into a Lillee v Cummins contest too much, because you lot will melt down, but Cummins has 294 wickets at 22.43. Careers not over, but honestly, he’s currently matching Lillee for career record.

So for me, if everyone just gets over their Thommo magic-summer obsession and actually looks at this, the bowling for the Gen Ys is superior.

The batting is more complex. As someone else said, I’d have put in Head above Watson. It’s a dangerous game, but even if you say that Smith cancels out Chappell, I accept that Clarke doesn’t cancel out Border. Mind you, Clarke’s record shouldn’t be sneezed at and he scored a lot of of tough runs in a very bad team.

Geoff Marsh is a bit of a weak link at the top of the order, but with Labuschagne currently looking like he’ll be a flop, I’m not sure about the top order, I guess the Boomers can take it with Tubby and Boonie. I do think it’s a bit of a rip off that the Boomers get to pick from 20 years of players – the concept that Chappell playing from 1970 gets to be in the same team as as Taylor who played as late as 1999 is a bit of a rort.

Kim Hughes is the batting version of Thommo. The old timers fondly remember a century or two he scored that no one else could ‘ever do’, but let’s be honest – one century in England, 1 in India – an average of 37. I think I’d take Head over him.

Anyway, that’s my attempt to defend my generation.

Benaud?

Harvey? Simpson? Morris?

Thanks mate, very informative. I had assumed it was long gone, as it’s hard to imagine there wouldn’t have been one after the Don. That also lines up with how it went out of fashion after Don and a few in the 50s and by the time cricketers started getting them more regularly, we didn’t have it anymore.

There seems to have been a bit of a glut of them recently though. It seems to happen in patches

A few Poms received it in the 50s, after Bradman got his in 49.

Then it seems to have gone out of fashion for and was kinda sporadic; Worrell in ’64, Sobers in ’75, Allen in ’86. Then it exploded in the ’90s; Hadlee, Walcott, Weekes, Hunte and Richards from the Colonies, Cowdrey and Bedser from England.

Then it went back out of fashion for a whil until, Botham in ’07, ‘Hall, Ambrose, Roberts and Richardson from the Windies in the early 2010s.

But then since 2017, they’ve knighted Griffith, Cook, Boycott, Strauss, Lloyd, Greenidge and now Anderson.

Do New Zealand no longer do it? We don’t I don’t think (it got confusing with Abbott there for a while, I’m not sure where we stand). The Windies are unlikley to knight too many more you’d think (either due to republicanism or because they just don’t make good cricketers anymore).

You’d think if Strauss, Cook and Anderson have it, Root is almost a certainty. I’d think Stokes too. Morgan for winning a world cup (can he take it being Irish)?

Thanks for the comment D*ve, and sad to see you go, it’s been a pleasured to talk cricket with you!

And no draw at home against the Poms will ever suffice