Hehe I like this thread Liam
Some very interesting reading! Heres my team:
Hayden (Why break something up that works, particularly if it happens
Langer to be the best there ever was)
Bradman (Of course)
G.Chappell (just ask Richie!)
Border (Thats a brick wall of a middle order for opposition
S.Waugh bowling attacks!)
Gilchrist (Any arguments there?)
B.O'Reilly (Two spinners?
Warne Theyre playing at the SCG aren't they?)
Lillee
McGrath (Sorry Thommo)
Now in defense of Steve Waugh I have a few things to say.
Steve Waugh played for Steve Waugh.
Of cause he played for S.Waugh Matty. S.Waugh was part of the Australian side and he played for the Australian side!
How instumental was he in bolstering the lower orders confidence in scoring runs? He had special training sessions for the lower order that specifically focused on BATTING! I admit there is an element of self interest for him in that, being a middle order batsman, but selfless acts are pretty hard to find. Anyone remember Gillespie's double century? It was against Bangladesh but a double century is a double century, no?
Couldn't agree more Matty.
Ponting has batted almost all of his career at 3 - Steve hid down the order!
Imagine what Ponting's average would be if he came in every innings when the ball was 50 overs old!!
First of all Steve did not 'hide down the order'. He was intoduced to international cricket as an all-rounder, and the traditional spot for it is in the middle order. So he spent some time there before he was dropped. He had always been a bit of a slogger, being overlooked for the U/19s Aussie team for hitting the ball in the air too much, even though he topped that batting averages and aggregates and put in a handy effort with the ball!
He was reintroduced to the side for the series against the Windies in 92/93as the
number 3 batsman. The problem was, in his absense he had worked hard on his technique, focussing on survivability, removing the hook and pull from his game. He scored 228 runs @ 25.33 in this series (Boon was opening the batting).
I think his new style forced the selectors to move him down the order and from the next series onward he would stay at number 5 for the most part.
Now with all this said (sorry this is getting long) anyone who knows anything about batting knows that your number 3 batsman has to be a 'strokemaker' with all the shots and can keep the scoreboard ticking over in any situation. With that in mind do you really think S.Waugh would have been a suitable choice? The selectors knew he wasn't. When Boon retired ( in the same series that Ponting made his debute interestingly - @ No6) they fiddled around with Langer, Elliot, Blewett, Bevan trying to find a combination that worked.
As far as Ricky Ponting goes, well...he didnt start batting at number 3 for Australia until Slater finished up after the 4th ashes test of 2001. In the 5th test Hayden and Langer made their first opening partnership (158) with Ponting at number 3 (followed up in the next game in the 1st test against N.Z with 224!) Up until this point Ponting had been number 6 for the majority of his test appearances.
Hey Bomber, no question S Waugh was the better captain - although fair to say he also had a fairly handy team at his disposal too!
I am not a SW hater at all - he does (and should) go down as one of Australia's all time great batsmen. I just think he took the selfish approach when Boon retired and Australia were really struggling for a #3.....he should have stepped up to the plate and taken ownership of the #3 spot, and for whatever reason he didn't.
However noone other than Bradman has a higher Test average for Australia than Punter. I think history will mark Ponting the better batsman - because he will score more runs than Steve Waugh, at a higher average, and having batted in the toughest position in the batting lineup there is, also with lesser players around him and therefore with more pressure. Ponting's average as captain is higher than before he was captain, which not many captains around the world (and in history) can lay claim to.
The debate of captaincy is a different argument altogether.....and Steve Waugh will win that argument every time!!
I will say this: Ricky and Steve both had very similar beginnings in test cricket. Both were introduced very young, struggled, dropped and reintroduced bigger and better (Ricky made 127 when he got his second chance). They were both free-hitters when they started out but omission forced them both to make some changes to better suit them to test cricket, AND slot into a position that was needed at that time. Australia was lacking stability in the middle order and they filled these positions perfectly.
However, I think S.Waugh had to change his technique very drastically compared to Ponting, which left Ponting the more versatile. As far as raw ability goes I think they were on par. So yes I would rate Ponting the better batsman, but Steve the better cricketer.
/end rant
Hehe sorry guys got carried away there