The XI July 20, 2009

Australia's finest

Three legends from the 2000s feature in the jury's XI, which has a mostly even spread across the decades of Australian cricket
107

After six categories and two months of decisions, Cricinfo's selectors release their verdicts and reveal their all-time Australian XI. Don Bradman, Shane Warne and Dennis Lillee were universally picked by the 10 judges, while Greg Chappell and Keith Miller received nine votes, one more than Victor Trumper and Adam Gilchrist in their respective categories.

To balance the experts' outfit, we also include the readers' XI and there are a few disagreements. None of the openers are the same, with the masses pushing for Matthew Hayden and Bill Ponsford at the top instead of Trumper and Arthur Morris. The online judges also call for Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting in the middle order instead of Greg Chappell and Allan Border. However, there was agreement over the other seven spots in the side.

In the readers' poll, Hayden got more than twice the number of votes Ponsford did, and more than Taylor, Morris and Trumper combined. Bradman received almost 80% more support than Ponting in the middle order; Miller picked up nearly 65% to sweep past Richie Benaud for the allrounder's spot; and Gilchrist took eight votes for every one for Ian Healy.

Only 60 votes separated McGrath and Lillee, and each fast man polled more than all the others put together. Warne got nearly twice as much support as Bill O'Reilly, but the legspinners won spots in both XIs.

Either team would fancy their chances against any of the other all-time outfits, which will be decided over the rest of the year.

1 Victor Trumper
Trumper was the prototype of an expressive Australian batsmanship based on boldness, instinct and natural talent. By his modesty and courtesy, in an age that valued such qualities, he also made a hero to rally round. Gideon Haigh

2 Arthur Morris
Arthur Morris was well organised and serene at the crease, and from those twin centuries he made on NSW debut when aged 18 through his prolific Test match seasons and tours, he was the epitome of self-assuredness and unflappability. Don Bradman's instant support for him never wavered, and Morris' crowning moment was probably when he topped the figures on that memorable 1948 tour of England. David Frith

3 Don Bradman
Bradman's selection is axiomatic, and of course, has to refer to his stats because he dominated cricket in a way for which there is no comparison in any other sport, with the possible exception of Walter Lindrum in billiards and snooker. His cricket allowed him to become part of the fabric of Australian life - symbolised by the ABC's PO Box number of 9994 - in a way unmatched by any other individual. Warwick Franks

4 Greg Chappell
The remarkable Ricky Ponting has clouded the issue, but Greg Chappell remains the supreme Australian batsman since the retirement of Neil Harvey in the 60s. Chappell was a cricketing aristocrat, tall and commanding. But whatever his stature at the crease it was his performances at the wicket that raised him to immortality. In 1979 he hit SuperTest centuries in Trinidad and Guyana and 431 runs in four internationals at 61.57 against one of the greatest fast bowling attacks ever assembled in Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Colin Croft, Joel Garner and Wayne Daniel. No batsman in half a century could equal or eclipse this achievement. Phil Wilkins

5 Allan Border
He's never ever received the appropriate recognition, not only for what he achieved in Australian cricket, but for Australian cricket. It's 25 years in December since he was appointed captain and the sustained success of Australia over the past two decades or so is the direct result of his bravery, commitment and leadership. Mike Coward

6 Keith Miller
This country's finest and most flamboyant allrounder, Miller is just one of three Australians, with Shane Warne and Richie Benaud, to have scored more than 2000 runs and taken over 100 wickets. He batted mostly at No. 5, where he averaged 41.98 and scored five of his seven centuries. Malcolm Conn

7 Adam Gilchrist
How often in history has the most feared batsmen in a line-up come in at No. 7? Adam Gilchrist did. In a time when cricket was in danger of being routinised and industrialised, he played a hearty, heady, seemingly carefree brand that mocked convention, never looking other than excited to be out there. Gideon Haigh

8 Shane Warne
The boy with the bullet-train flipper grew up and became master of bluster, capable of derailing the best-set batsmen with balls spinning a mile or a millimetre. You'd pick both Warnes if you could. Christian Ryan

9 Bill O'Reilly
His fast legspin and hell-or-high-water attitude would make him the perfect companion for Shane Warne, whose coming he predicted but narrowly missed. However, the main reason for choosing Tiger is the thought of bumping into him in the afterlife. Peter Roebuck

10 Dennis Lillee
Dennis Lillee is the most excitingly hostile Australian fast bowler I've seen. His combination of pace, swing and intimidation was always threatening, and the crowd's rapture for him played out with the chant of "Lilleee, Lilleee". From wild, rawboned days as a genuinely fast bowler through back injuries to a more controlled, scheming and theatrical cricketer, Lillee was a consistent wicket taker, and much-feared opponent. Jim Maxwell

11 Glenn McGrath
McGrath is an automatic selection not only for his 563 Test wickets at 21.64, his inescapable line and length and his steepling bounce, but for his aura. It was fun to see him target the opposition's best batsman, get into his head, then follow a simple plan for success until the batsman succumbed. He also did a superb impression of a teapot when things weren't going well. Chloe Saltau

12th man Ricky Ponting

Cricinfo readers' XI
We invited readers to vote on the nominees in each segment. Here's who they picked.
Matthew Hayden, Bill Ponsford, Don Bradman, Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh, Adam Gilchrist, Keith Miller, Shane Warne, Bill O'Reilly, Dennis Lillee, Glenn McGrath


Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Engle on July 22, 2009, 21:21 GMT

    @Aussieicon91

    1. Five bowlers are needed because this Aus AT XI is going up against another AT XI and having just 4 bowlers risks exhaustion. An All-rounder is definitely needed. 2. Hayden bulked up on runs from inferior opponents. Not for nothing, he's known as The Bully. 3. Ponting never had to face the kind of attacks that Border and G.Chappell did. Just going on and on accumulating quantity of runs is not the same as quality of runs. Border went through a lean patch of Aus history and came through with flying colors. G.Chappell took on the rampaging W.Indian speedsters and triumphed. Glad to see both their places secure.

    The inclusion of 2 LBG spinners could hold advantage over an AT England or AT W.I, although less so against sub-continental teams.

    Methinks some sentimentality has preceded variety. Who could resist seeing Warne and O'Reilly in tandem ?

    And no Aus team is complete without Miller.

    All said a commendable effort.

  • 8ankitj on July 22, 2009, 14:06 GMT

    @Aussieicon: "why would you need 5 bowlers when 4 of them are instant alltime greats?"

    Alternatively, why would you need 7 batsmen when at least 5 of them are alltime greats? When you have such prodigious batsmen to choose from and a wicketkeeper-batsman as good as any specialist batsmen, I would play one bowler extra. After all, you need to take 20 wickets to win a game. Scoring 700 instead of 600 will not win you a test. Therefore, for all time XIs I always like to pick 5 batsmen, 1 wicket keeper, 1 all-rounder and 4 bowlers. So I agree with the composition completely.

  • rats_rule on July 22, 2009, 12:36 GMT

    in response to the post by waspsting on (July 21 2009, 14:00 PM GMT) .... oh my god u think lillee was a tad overrated??!! DK Lillee was and is the greatest fast bowler australia has ever produced. I and many others would say that he is the greatest fast bowler the world has ever seen. can i get an amen?

  • Poppa on July 22, 2009, 10:41 GMT

    And I have an international team that will beat them anyway. A team of all rounders (with the notable exception of Bradman, who counts as 2 batsmen!), in batting order: Wally Hammond, Garfield Sobers, Don Bradman, Frank Worrell, Jacques Kallis, Steve Waugh (c), Adam Gilchrist, Keith Miller, Imran Khan, Shaun Pollock, Richard Hadlee. Between them they made 183 centuries and took 2123 wickets. Average batting average for the whole team 49.94, bowling 27.85. Not sure how they'd get on in the sheds, but I think they'd win on the field.

  • Beertjie on July 22, 2009, 10:21 GMT

    I agree with narenvs. The selection I disagree with most is Mcgrath. Why select a bowler who by his own admission 'bored' batsmen out over the tall and quick Demon who could have done at least as much, if not more? I was inclined to Lindwall or Davidson, but one needs to cover all the periods where possible. Having Miller and Lillee followed by Spofforth would at least have been as good. I should have expected a better perspective from the Experts. Their claim to have covered all the important periods would have been better substantiated if the first two decades of test cricket were to have been included as a matter of historical fact.

  • Poppa on July 22, 2009, 9:41 GMT

    My side was Ponsford, Hayden, Bradman, Ponting, Waugh, Miller, Gilchrist, Grimmett, McGrath, Lillee and Lindwall. I'd only have one spinner because I think that is plenty. And I'd have Grimmett over O'Reilly and Warne because I think he was craftier and hated batsmen more! And I think Warne was a destabilising influence. With a pace bowling attack of Lillee, McGrath, Lindwall and Miller, I might be a little pace-heavy, and I'd consider replacing Miller with Border and going with only 4 bowlers. Gillie is a lock for me - my favourite cricketer of all time. And I'd make Steve Waugh my captain - a more aggressive captain there has never been. Lots of attacking batsmen with Haydos, Bradman (of course), Punter and Gillie. Some defence with Ponsford, Waugh and possibly Border.

  • Aussieicon91 on July 22, 2009, 7:24 GMT

    It's a shame that the best XI hasn't been selected and that the wrong dynamics have been used to select the side. Firstly, Bill O'Reilly shouldn't be in the side and only 4 bowlers should've been selected, why would you need 5 bowlers when 4 of them are instant alltime greats? Secondary, the Opening partnership has been completely screwed up. I can handle Trumper in the XI, but Hayden should've been the first opener down on the sheet. Hayden's one of the best Opening Batsman ever, let alone the best one that Australia has ever produced. You can say whatever you want about Hayden, but had he played in the same team as Bradman then he would've surely averaged more then 50 with the bat. When so many people vote over this sort've thing and one player wins by a landslide over the others, it obviously says something. Thirdly, no Ricky Ponting in the team means that the team can absolutley NOT be the best Aussie side of alltime. The guy is almost as good as Tendulkar for god sakes.

  • narenvs on July 22, 2009, 2:35 GMT

    australia has the greatest all-time XI because it was among the top 2 teams much of the time since 1877. its bowling is better than that of the next best team, england - whose all-time team would have trueman, barnes, botham, rhodes, laker as bowlers in my view. and its batting compares with that of west indies & england solely because of bradman. otherwise, each the best 5 batsmen in the windies all-time team (headley, sobers, richards, weeks/ lara, walcott) were better than all austrialian batsmen except bradman. the same is true of the best 4 english batsmen (hammond, hutton, hobbs, grace). moreover, australia had 4 of the 5 best keepers (tallon, evans, oldfield, marsh, healy) and 3 of the 4 best spinners (warne, o'reilly, laker, grimmett). as a result, australia's bowling would even be better than that of the rest of the world XI (trueman, marshall, imran/ hadlee, sobers, laker) if we replace mcgrath with lindwall in the australian XI.

  • tjsimonsen on July 21, 2009, 22:32 GMT

    Just one two more comments are reading through all the ones before me: Trumper vs. Hayden is a non-issue. Hayden simply isn't head and shoulders above almost all his contemporaries like Trumper was. Effective and intimidating though he could be with a helmet and a heavy bat on batsman-friendly tracks, Hayden would probably only have averaged 25-30 in Trumper's days against Barnes, Rhodes and friends. As for Chappell vs. Pointing, all I can says is, imagine Pointing WITHOUT a helmet facing the likes of Holder, Daniel, Holding, Garner, Willis etc. on an uncovered pitch! Nuff said!

  • tjsimonsen on July 21, 2009, 22:09 GMT

    Interesting selection with which I cannot really disagree. Though I had Marsh for Gilchrist and Lindwall for O'Reilly. But Warne and O'Reilly bowling in tandem would be a terrifying sight for any batsmen but the very best against spin (for those it would only be very, very intimidating). Of course Trumper should be in the side. Hobbs abd Sutcliffe are the only batsmen who could edge him aside as the best opener ever! But I would still like to see the best keeper stand up to this bowling attack! With Trumper opening, Bradman, Chappell and Border in the middle order, Miller coming in at 6 and Warne at 8, this side doesn't need an intimidating batsman at 7. But the best keeper would get the most out of this attack.

  • Engle on July 22, 2009, 21:21 GMT

    @Aussieicon91

    1. Five bowlers are needed because this Aus AT XI is going up against another AT XI and having just 4 bowlers risks exhaustion. An All-rounder is definitely needed. 2. Hayden bulked up on runs from inferior opponents. Not for nothing, he's known as The Bully. 3. Ponting never had to face the kind of attacks that Border and G.Chappell did. Just going on and on accumulating quantity of runs is not the same as quality of runs. Border went through a lean patch of Aus history and came through with flying colors. G.Chappell took on the rampaging W.Indian speedsters and triumphed. Glad to see both their places secure.

    The inclusion of 2 LBG spinners could hold advantage over an AT England or AT W.I, although less so against sub-continental teams.

    Methinks some sentimentality has preceded variety. Who could resist seeing Warne and O'Reilly in tandem ?

    And no Aus team is complete without Miller.

    All said a commendable effort.

  • 8ankitj on July 22, 2009, 14:06 GMT

    @Aussieicon: "why would you need 5 bowlers when 4 of them are instant alltime greats?"

    Alternatively, why would you need 7 batsmen when at least 5 of them are alltime greats? When you have such prodigious batsmen to choose from and a wicketkeeper-batsman as good as any specialist batsmen, I would play one bowler extra. After all, you need to take 20 wickets to win a game. Scoring 700 instead of 600 will not win you a test. Therefore, for all time XIs I always like to pick 5 batsmen, 1 wicket keeper, 1 all-rounder and 4 bowlers. So I agree with the composition completely.

  • rats_rule on July 22, 2009, 12:36 GMT

    in response to the post by waspsting on (July 21 2009, 14:00 PM GMT) .... oh my god u think lillee was a tad overrated??!! DK Lillee was and is the greatest fast bowler australia has ever produced. I and many others would say that he is the greatest fast bowler the world has ever seen. can i get an amen?

  • Poppa on July 22, 2009, 10:41 GMT

    And I have an international team that will beat them anyway. A team of all rounders (with the notable exception of Bradman, who counts as 2 batsmen!), in batting order: Wally Hammond, Garfield Sobers, Don Bradman, Frank Worrell, Jacques Kallis, Steve Waugh (c), Adam Gilchrist, Keith Miller, Imran Khan, Shaun Pollock, Richard Hadlee. Between them they made 183 centuries and took 2123 wickets. Average batting average for the whole team 49.94, bowling 27.85. Not sure how they'd get on in the sheds, but I think they'd win on the field.

  • Beertjie on July 22, 2009, 10:21 GMT

    I agree with narenvs. The selection I disagree with most is Mcgrath. Why select a bowler who by his own admission 'bored' batsmen out over the tall and quick Demon who could have done at least as much, if not more? I was inclined to Lindwall or Davidson, but one needs to cover all the periods where possible. Having Miller and Lillee followed by Spofforth would at least have been as good. I should have expected a better perspective from the Experts. Their claim to have covered all the important periods would have been better substantiated if the first two decades of test cricket were to have been included as a matter of historical fact.

  • Poppa on July 22, 2009, 9:41 GMT

    My side was Ponsford, Hayden, Bradman, Ponting, Waugh, Miller, Gilchrist, Grimmett, McGrath, Lillee and Lindwall. I'd only have one spinner because I think that is plenty. And I'd have Grimmett over O'Reilly and Warne because I think he was craftier and hated batsmen more! And I think Warne was a destabilising influence. With a pace bowling attack of Lillee, McGrath, Lindwall and Miller, I might be a little pace-heavy, and I'd consider replacing Miller with Border and going with only 4 bowlers. Gillie is a lock for me - my favourite cricketer of all time. And I'd make Steve Waugh my captain - a more aggressive captain there has never been. Lots of attacking batsmen with Haydos, Bradman (of course), Punter and Gillie. Some defence with Ponsford, Waugh and possibly Border.

  • Aussieicon91 on July 22, 2009, 7:24 GMT

    It's a shame that the best XI hasn't been selected and that the wrong dynamics have been used to select the side. Firstly, Bill O'Reilly shouldn't be in the side and only 4 bowlers should've been selected, why would you need 5 bowlers when 4 of them are instant alltime greats? Secondary, the Opening partnership has been completely screwed up. I can handle Trumper in the XI, but Hayden should've been the first opener down on the sheet. Hayden's one of the best Opening Batsman ever, let alone the best one that Australia has ever produced. You can say whatever you want about Hayden, but had he played in the same team as Bradman then he would've surely averaged more then 50 with the bat. When so many people vote over this sort've thing and one player wins by a landslide over the others, it obviously says something. Thirdly, no Ricky Ponting in the team means that the team can absolutley NOT be the best Aussie side of alltime. The guy is almost as good as Tendulkar for god sakes.

  • narenvs on July 22, 2009, 2:35 GMT

    australia has the greatest all-time XI because it was among the top 2 teams much of the time since 1877. its bowling is better than that of the next best team, england - whose all-time team would have trueman, barnes, botham, rhodes, laker as bowlers in my view. and its batting compares with that of west indies & england solely because of bradman. otherwise, each the best 5 batsmen in the windies all-time team (headley, sobers, richards, weeks/ lara, walcott) were better than all austrialian batsmen except bradman. the same is true of the best 4 english batsmen (hammond, hutton, hobbs, grace). moreover, australia had 4 of the 5 best keepers (tallon, evans, oldfield, marsh, healy) and 3 of the 4 best spinners (warne, o'reilly, laker, grimmett). as a result, australia's bowling would even be better than that of the rest of the world XI (trueman, marshall, imran/ hadlee, sobers, laker) if we replace mcgrath with lindwall in the australian XI.

  • tjsimonsen on July 21, 2009, 22:32 GMT

    Just one two more comments are reading through all the ones before me: Trumper vs. Hayden is a non-issue. Hayden simply isn't head and shoulders above almost all his contemporaries like Trumper was. Effective and intimidating though he could be with a helmet and a heavy bat on batsman-friendly tracks, Hayden would probably only have averaged 25-30 in Trumper's days against Barnes, Rhodes and friends. As for Chappell vs. Pointing, all I can says is, imagine Pointing WITHOUT a helmet facing the likes of Holder, Daniel, Holding, Garner, Willis etc. on an uncovered pitch! Nuff said!

  • tjsimonsen on July 21, 2009, 22:09 GMT

    Interesting selection with which I cannot really disagree. Though I had Marsh for Gilchrist and Lindwall for O'Reilly. But Warne and O'Reilly bowling in tandem would be a terrifying sight for any batsmen but the very best against spin (for those it would only be very, very intimidating). Of course Trumper should be in the side. Hobbs abd Sutcliffe are the only batsmen who could edge him aside as the best opener ever! But I would still like to see the best keeper stand up to this bowling attack! With Trumper opening, Bradman, Chappell and Border in the middle order, Miller coming in at 6 and Warne at 8, this side doesn't need an intimidating batsman at 7. But the best keeper would get the most out of this attack.

  • Deserthead75 on July 21, 2009, 21:38 GMT

    Chappell is a disgrace to this XI

    Do you not people not recall Feb 1, 1981?

    Ponting not only has a better ave, more 100s, more runs, he is a far superior fielder.

  • amitava0112 on July 21, 2009, 19:16 GMT

    Well....my XI come pretty close-nearly 70%: It was : Simpson, Taylor, Ponting, Bradman, Border, Miller, Gilly,Warne, Grimmet, Lillee, Mcgrath. Simpson RHB and bowls spin...could be a useful change bowler...Taylor battled against Windies & Pak quicks in 1990s (Hyden comparitively played weaker bowlers), Ponting with his sheer record and class behind him could have played in any era...fine player of fast bowling., Border was man of crisis, sadly I had to leave out Greg Chappell ..one of my favourite bat.Miller is the best allrounder, Gilly forces his way in due to his batting ..Marsh & healy were better keepers.Grimmet was a greatly successful spinner during his era with great strike record.Warne,Lillee & the Don are automatic choices and Mcgrath edges out lindwall due to his longivity and stats and also as he is highly successful during a time when the game is dominated by batsmen. On spnning wkts..G Chappell replaces ponting in batting order and lindwall for grimmet on faster wkts

  • narenvs on July 21, 2009, 14:43 GMT

    the team is on the whole very good. the choice i disagree with most is mcgrath over lindwall. lindwall was a better bowler (more variation, faster, more destructive) and a better bat; in fact, one of the 5 best pacers of all time (along with lillee, trueman, marshall and barnes). mcgrath was not among the 10 best as at least five others were better (wasim, hadlee, hall, garner, larwood) and many others were at least as good (e.g., bedser, ambrose, spofforth, gregory, mcdonald, statham, lohmann, etc.) also, i'd prefer a top wicketkeeper with a batting averages in the high 20s (marsh, healy) to a less than world-class keeper who scored much more (gilchrist), though i'd prefer the first two to the best aussie keepers (tallon, oldfield) as the latter weren't good enough to bat at no. 7.

  • Barks1986 on July 21, 2009, 14:08 GMT

    VictorTrumper, Bill Ponsford, Don Bradman, Greg Chappell, Archie Jackson, Keith Miller, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne, Bill O'Reilly, Dennis Lillee, Glenn McGrath with Ricky Ponting twelfth man. Team is based purely on talent alone. Ponsford was a massive accumulator of runs and deserves a spot ahead of Morris. Jackson wasn't even on the shortlist but was the most talented batsman in this illustrious side, dying of tuberculosis at 23 he never got the opportunity to showcase his extreme talent. Labelled by many pundits as better even that Bradman, Archie Jackson doesn't get the acknoledgement that he deserves. He replaces Border in the all-time XI whose spot was gained mainly because of sympathy for dragging Australian cricket out of the doldrums. He doesn't even deserve a spot infront of Ponting who is the latest in a long line of ultra-talented Australian middle order batsmen.

  • waspsting on July 21, 2009, 14:00 GMT

    essence of the team is the balance of 3 fast bowlers and 2 spinners - all of the highest quality. this is made possible by the batting weight of Bradman and Gilchrist - otherwise 5 specialist batsmen is a risky ploy. still, I'd have had davidson and lindwall in place of mcgrath and lillee to further solidify the batting line up. there's little to choose between them as bowlers - and the former two are much handier bats. davidson's bowling average is great, esp. considering he wasn't head honcho for quite awhile, and Lillee is a tad overrated - though still great. can't justify border over ponting. border's conversion rate of 50s to 100s was pretty poor. morris is also overrated - his great success' were against relatively weak bowling, and after his purple patch finished, he was just ok. no other all time 11 can match this balance of 3 pace and 2 spin without seriously weakening the batting, and for that reason, i'd say the australian team is probably the best of all.

  • D.V.C. on July 21, 2009, 13:26 GMT

    I found the keeper the toughest decision. Gilchrist was a fair decision but Oldfield still holds the record for the most stumpings in a test career! Can you imagine pairing a guy like him up with spinners like Warne and O'Rielly.

  • rooyardley on July 21, 2009, 13:21 GMT

    This is all a bit silly I reckon. Different eras, uncovered pitches, covered pitches, all the new protective gear inc helmets,thigh, chest, forearm, inner thigh batting gloves,,shatterproof boxes(so important) sport science,dietitians,super bats,super academies super coaches,chuckers past and present, the list goes on and on. Would any one in the selected team get a game for Australia today? I don't think so,team culture has changed. Just ask Andrew Symonds about that.

  • Ozthewombat on July 21, 2009, 11:45 GMT

    Well that certainly caused some arguements, my personal team would be: Hayden, Langer (the most consistant opening partnership) Bradman, Ponting, S Waugh (his bowling was pretty good), Border (can also bowl occasional spin), Gilchrist (he may not be the keeper of purists but he played the same number of tests as Marsh scored more runs and took more dismissals than Healy), Warne, Lillee, McGrath, Lindwell, 12th man Chappell, 13th Miller. Then I would love to see this compared to a WI/English best eleven or Indian eleven and I would put my money on this team.

  • D.V.C. on July 21, 2009, 11:04 GMT

    @aks83 Bradman toured the U.S.A. How many current players have done that?

  • Beertjie on July 21, 2009, 9:09 GMT

    I am happy that 9 from my team have made it.Though I was disappointed not to find Fred Spofforth in the list of nominees. Reason: if the Aussie team were to play England and face Barnes or Grace who better to combat them than Trumper and Spofforth?

  • narenvs on July 21, 2009, 5:10 GMT

    perhaps border could be captain. a second XI: ponsford, taylor, ponting, harvey, steve waugh, gregory, healy, benaud, spofforth, mcgrath, grimmett.

  • AdityaMookerjee on July 21, 2009, 4:28 GMT

    I cannot argue with the jury, but I feel that there is one important omission, because of a different commission. Ian Chappell was the Jack Nicklaus of Australian cricket. The comparison may sound weird, but I find the comparison to be apt. Ian Chappell should have been included, in the all time greats list. Also, Rodney Marsh would be a better wicketkeeper batsman than Adam Gilchrist. The team which Ian and Greg Chappell, Dennis Lillee, Rodney Marsh, and Gary Gilmour represented, was the greatest Australian team ever, perhaps. I mention perhaps, because Steve Waugh had Shane Warne, and Sir Donald Bradman had William Joseph O'Reilly, and the balance of the two mentioned teams was better, than the team which Ian and Greg Chappell represented. However, I regard the Australian Team of the '70's as the greatest Australian Team which I can contemplate. That team would have been equally successful as Steve Waugh's team in the '90's, if it had played in the '90's.

  • Engle on July 21, 2009, 1:28 GMT

    A 2nd XI

    Hayden Ponsford Ponting Harvey S.Waugh Noble Marsh Benaud (c) Davidson Lindwall Thommo

  • ramarama on July 21, 2009, 1:26 GMT

    Will this group of players be able to play as a team? The best is always the team which won all under the Don in England.

  • santhoshkudva on July 21, 2009, 1:09 GMT

    a certain clarrie grimmett also played for australia. few questions. *why does not ponting feature in the XI? agreed playing conditions favour batsmen today, but it must be borne in mind that punter is head and shoulders above his contemporaries too. i have yet to see a batsman who has played as many tests as he and has a batting average of 56. and the rate at which he scores his centuries is also good. one every 3.5 tests. *no shane warne? *why not steve waugh ahead of keith miller?

  • Irfan_Muzammil on July 21, 2009, 0:37 GMT

    I believe Lillee is overrated for the simple fact that he has taken the grand total of 6 wickets outside Australasia and England, and instead he only bickered about the unhelpful conditions. Compare that to McGrath a bowler who has ruled at almost every ground he bowled at. I wouldn't pick Lillee if the Australian team is playing in the subcontinent.

  • omer_admani on July 21, 2009, 0:28 GMT

    "Bradman's selection is axiomatic, and of course, has to refer to his stats because he dominated cricket in a way for which there is no comparison in any other sport, with the possible exception of Walter Lindrum in billiards and snooker".

    Read about Jehangir Khan and the Khan dynasty in squash! Jehangir, incidentally, also holds the record for a winning streak unparalleled in the history of professional sport. If Bradman is the axiom of domination in cricket, then Jehangir Khan is the axiom of domination in all professional sport!

  • redneck on July 20, 2009, 23:58 GMT

    @Boraan yeah right steve waugh scored his runs in a more difficult time than border. firstly border not waugh started the australian domination of the last 2 decades & secondly border carried the australian team in the 80's the same team that had steve waugh in it at the start of his career! yes waugh is a legend along with AB but remember aside from the west indies tour in 95 aside waugh didnt save matches or win them for the team like AB did. both very similar captains but again i believe AB beats waugh as waugh had an embarrasment of riches at his disposal where border had to scrap for everything! if anything all this readers choice 11 shows is people have a very short memory!

  • keepingthebastardshonest on July 20, 2009, 23:48 GMT

    The selection process os FLAWED!!!! Why does there have to be an allrounder at number 6???????? The best balanced side(and almost all Australian sides) have 6 genuine batsman a WK and 4 genuine bowlers. Why the obsession with the allrounder? here is no way that Keith Miller would be in my best Australian 11, just pick the best 11!!

  • aks83 on July 20, 2009, 20:55 GMT

    I am sick of old timers claiming those in the past were automatically better, it is easy for batsmen nowadays, etc, etc. Consider that those in the past played in so few venues and against fewer teams. Players nowadays play all over the world without down time to refine their techniques. The demand of the modern game is different. The game is faster and more physical. So to not include Ponting and Hayden in an all time XI is ridiculous. You can only judge a player versus peers in their era. Perhaps cricinfo should use their statisticians to get an mean average for each decade and then weight it so there is a more even comparison across the generations. Dont give old timers more credit than due because of legend. Can you imagine how Hayden would be described in 50 years without paying due attention to his stats and understanding the context of the era he played in? A collosus who charged fast bowlers.....

  • chughesblancashire on July 20, 2009, 20:36 GMT

    The problem with selecting all time XIs is how to evaluate players whom one has never seen. How anybody who is alive today could select Victor Trumper defies logic. We have to go on statistics vis-a-vis their respective eras. I was fortunate to see Bradman once. He scratched around for about 45 minutes before giving a caught and bowled when he had scored 8 yet nobody would consider not picking the great man in any alltime team (Australian or World). And I would have Lindwall ahead of McGrath anytime. And Arthur Morris? I would have a couple before him. But this is a good stimulating exercise (everybody wants to put their opinion forward). Not me , of course!!

  • Cairnzee on July 20, 2009, 20:22 GMT

    Not 100% sure I agree with the inclusion of O'Reilly. He could make room for Ponting. Although he was the man that mentored Warney. Apart from that I agree whole heartedly with this eleven. Incredibly intimidating!!!!

  • deboniar on July 20, 2009, 18:32 GMT

    Well i would have liked to see hayden in dere

    his aura and ability to destroy aatacks was amazing

    Also not to forget his ability to play spin made him deadly dangerous

    Also i would have liked to see Steven waugh

  • sushantsingh on July 20, 2009, 16:51 GMT

    THOSE WHO ARE DEBATING VICTOR TRUMPER INCLUSION SHOULD KNOW THAT HE IS THE GREATEST BATSMAN EVER TO WALK ON THE UNIVERSE , DON'T GO BY THE AVERAGE .IT WAS THE AGE WHEN BOWLERS HAD THE AVERAGE OF 15 AND BATSMAN OF 35 , TODAY BOWLERS HAVE AVERAGE OF 25-30 & BATSMAN AVERAGE IS 45-50. SO TRUMPER INCLUSION IS JUSTIFIED.TRUMPER CAN DOMINATE BOWLERS OF ANY ERA BUT HAYDEN SURE WOULD HAVE STRUGGLED IN THAT ERA.

  • Josherick3 on July 20, 2009, 16:14 GMT

    The only issues I can see with the judges' selection are whether Richie Benaud should have been considered (as much for his captaincy as his other attributes) instead of, say, O'Reilly. I also would tend to favour the best pure keeper over Gilchrist, given the strength of the batting line-up.

    Davidson's a bit unlucky to miss out as well, given the reports about him!

  • Boraan on July 20, 2009, 15:48 GMT

    Well , Well , Well !!!!!!!!!! It's simple batting in this era has become easier as all conditions favor batsmen, rules favor them, third umpires benefit of doubts favor batsmen, pitches are made in their favor. So pick bowlers from this era and batsmen from old age. This justifies McGrath, Warne and Chappell's inclusion. For punter fans, let me tell them Chappell holds proportionally as good or slightly better record[if no. of not outs effecting the batting average is not taken in account] than Ponting with no Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as his opposition and more over not to forget the dramatic change in Windies cricket, especially in their bowling in Chappell's era to present Ponting's age. But however Trumper's presence is questionable as that era itself had better opening batsmen than him in form of both Bills, Ponsford and Woodfull, who successfully faced bodyline bowling. And finally Waugh[Steve] scored his runs and hundreds in more difficult time than Border's.

  • Ulysses on July 20, 2009, 15:41 GMT

    My All time Australian XI: Trumper, Morris, Bradman, Ponting, Chappell, Miller, Benaud, Gilchrist, Warne, Lillee, McGrath; Neil Harvey 12th man, Ray Lindwall 13th man

  • Souvik_Mukherjee on July 20, 2009, 15:30 GMT

    Clarrie Grimmett before O' Reilly.

  • RomanNoseJob on July 20, 2009, 15:21 GMT

    O'Reilly's inclusion is a bit odd. Australia is not a team defined by playing two spinners, yeah with Miller having him in the team may make sense, as three quality pacers is enough but I think these's all time XI's should also give a feel for what the team is about and not just who would happen to make the most sensible 11 if every Australian ever was available.

    In that respect Lindwall should have been included. Also, leaving out Steve Waugh entirely is a bit of a joke and I think Border is in there just to even out the generational spread and give the 80s team something to shout about. I would have had Ponsford opening instead of Morris, but that's just my personal opinion and I have no real qualms about you deciding to go the other way.

  • dmudge on July 20, 2009, 14:48 GMT

    The best part of this is the options it throws up to the "selectors". Imagine having an Ashes squad of these guys? If you have a pitch suited to fast bowling for the next test, drop O'Reilly and bring Lindwall in ..... if you need to strengthen the batting (veeerrry hypothetically), bring in Harvey, move Miller down the order and drop McGrath. Ah, the possibilities.

  • Phocks on July 20, 2009, 14:24 GMT

    What a lineup, good to have players from a wide range of generations, three genuine allrounders and that's not including Chappell and Border, three lefties scattered through the batting order, two leggies which for me offsetss no left arm bowler (Border) plus great fieldsman. I reckon Neil Harvey may be the unluckiest ommission, as a challenger to both Border and also Ponting's positions. Richie Benaud also as an allrounder challenging Ponting at 12th, but Ponting and Harvey are the two greatest all round fieldsman, could you field three leggies if McGrath rolled an ankle again on the eve of a Test, oh yes. You read about Trumper, what would he have done on covered wickets, another Barry Richards. Lots of captains here, but let's have Warne (capt) Miller (vice capt). Coach?...no way, maybe ex captain Armstrong as a most imposing Manager. So many keepers to choose from, but Gillie is simply iconic.

  • SJS1950 on July 20, 2009, 14:24 GMT

    Frankly disappointed. Expected much better from such an eminent jury.

    One understands that an al time cricket squad is not something everyone will agree upon so this criticism is not based on the squad being different from the one would have chosen himself. The objections are more fundamental.

    1. Jury appears influenced by statistics and sheer volumes. - Other wise Harvey(even McCabe) could have been a candidate in place of Border.

    2. Same seems to be the factor influencing the choice of Macgrath over Lindwall (arguably Australia's greatest ever fast bowler)

    3. Death of the specialist: Devaluation of the specialist keeper is an unfortunate tendency of the limited overs era. If Gilchrist can command a place over some of the greatest keepers the world has seen (Oldfield, Tallon, Healy) then Benaud should be preferred above Warne.

    By the way,If two leg spinners (even though O'reilly bowled much quicker) had to be included, wouldn't O'Reilly made a better pairing with him?

  • romel55 on July 20, 2009, 14:16 GMT

    Selectors just could not get past the reputation of Bill O'reilly...two leg spinners in all time australian team...just ridiculous...how many times it worked for any test team in the history effectively?

  • delta20 on July 20, 2009, 14:07 GMT

    Ok Great work by the jury and the readers. The team seems ok but the idea of two spinners doesn't seem okay to me. Either Lindwall or Mc Dermott for O'reilly? I have not seen of trumper and morris so no ideas but what I know is Mathew hayden can be in trouble with a paceman with good control of swing and seam and if pace battery from WI have a go at him, he could be in real trouble. I have also watched steve waugh batting and I honestly think that he should be in the team. I don't know but who will leave for him, Chappel or Border? And regarding wicketkeeper I think Ian healy would be my choice as I am uncertain of how rod marsh would have kept against warney although he was a great in every respect. The team with this strong batting line up don't need a no. 7 batsman in gilchrist (No offence to his talent and gamesmanship) anyway. And regarding a team to match this team I can just say wait for the WI all time XI. That's it.

  • mrgupta on July 20, 2009, 14:00 GMT

    The team looks good but i am surprised by the selection of Greg and AB over Ricky and Waugh. You cannot just decide on the fact that Greg Chappel and AB played against the better bowling attack to prove they r better than Ponting or Steve Waugh. The Bowling attack that these guys have faced Wasim Akram, Younis, Ambrose, Walsh, Murli, Kumble, Polock, Donald... Were these mediocre by any standards? Why just playing a good inning against a super fast bowling unit fares better than the one played by Steve Waugh or Ponting against the above mentioned guys? Ricky as 12th Man is an insult to a person with over 20,000 International runs. Also, selection of Bill O'Reilly over Benaud is puzzling, while Bill O'Reilly was only a spinner, Benuad was a Genuine allrounder and a great leader.

  • ALLROUNDCRICKET on July 20, 2009, 13:46 GMT

    Gotta say, Not to have a certain STEVE WAUGH, is rather unfair. Let No one forget how Australia started their domination. It was THAT innings in Jamaica against a Hostile Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop in 1994 that made them champions of Test Cricket. Furthermore, it was THAT innings at Headingley wiht the ball swinging around chasing a stiff target against Pollock, Donald, Kallis and a whole array of Proteas. He was the first one to have led Australia to a record 16 consecutive test wins. And ask the English and they'll be the first to admit that his was the most Prized wicket. Gotta have a certain S.R.WAUGH for me in place of Border.

  • Engle on July 20, 2009, 13:42 GMT

    Could you please replace the picture of a smoking Shane Warne with another ? Surely there must be one in your archives of him smiling, appealing, anything but smoking. Thank You,

  • bzzd on July 20, 2009, 13:39 GMT

    This is a pretty good team. Tough not to have Benaud - surely one of the great cricket brains. My only criticism is the exclusion of Lindwall. It is tough, perhaps, but I would have picked him ahead of McGrath. Not only was Lindwall lethal but he could bat, too. Otherwise - good job guys.

  • stevo198 on July 20, 2009, 13:38 GMT

    Maybe all the bowlers should have been lumped together in one group? If nothing else it would have thrown a few different combinations into the mix. ie do you really need another spinner with warne in the team? Ponting might look like he struggles in difficult circumstances occasionally, but you don't score 11000 runs and 38 centuries without plenty of talent to start with.

  • anant_gupta on July 20, 2009, 13:33 GMT

    unimaginative, rigid and emotional selection higlighted by the fact "Victor Trumper, whose average of 39.04 from 48 Tests belies his art" . It seems Ricky ponting lost to none other than Bradman. I will rather pick him up as a opener, for there is no reason to belive he will not be equally proficient , and certainly better than Morris. Also Steve waugh can come as an allrounder instead of Keith Miller, for he can easily bowl long spells of medium pace and is certainly a better bat

  • SridharSampath on July 20, 2009, 13:23 GMT

    A job well done. My team, however, would have had Ian Healy in place of Gilchrist (Healy was a slightly better keeper and had to face superior bowling attacks during his days), Hugh Trumble in place of O'Reilly (for the sake of variety in the Spin department) and Alan Davidson in place of Mcgrath, for the same reason - variety. AB would certainly be my captain because of the way he led the Aussies during their most difficult phase in the last 60 years. Can't wait for the next 'episode' of the All-time XI to begin.

    Sridhar Sampath

  • TheFamousEccles on July 20, 2009, 13:02 GMT

    The readers selections, not surpriingly, reflect the fact that the vast majority have been watching for less than 15 years and have little knowledge of the history of the game. Trumper and Morris are so far above Hayden in every respect (except perhaps slip catching) that it does not even bear discussion. Flat track bully is personified by Hayden.

  • Dilanjith44 on July 20, 2009, 12:47 GMT

    Hayden had to miss out quite rightly!!!!..although he averaged over 50 he was just a slogger trying to get the hell out of the ball!!..the more classical and naturally talented Trumper and Morris deserve their places!!!

  • kal07 on July 20, 2009, 12:28 GMT

    Did anyone notice, there is no current player in the best XI lineup. Bad news for Australia...Ricky comes the closest as the 12th man.

    I think India will have a few current players...Sachin and Sehwag are my choices. Lets see which other alltime XI can do that!

  • Bhamo on July 20, 2009, 12:25 GMT

    Just two fast Bowlers??!! Australia always depends on Fast Bowling, they need minimum 3 Fast Bowlers in playing elevens.

  • poyta on July 20, 2009, 12:23 GMT

    Really pointless exercise. Why were we forced to select an all rounder? Why were we forced to select a second spinner?

    The two top teams of the past 30years played without a all rounder and the Windies never even had a frontline spinner in that time.

    Would have had Ponting, Harvey, either of the Waughs, Ian Chapell etc etc etc etc etc etc at six over any of the allrounders we could choose from.

  • gmt3872001 on July 20, 2009, 11:21 GMT

    No Thommo in the Playing Eleven ??? That' s not the team !!!

  • tommo05 on July 20, 2009, 10:34 GMT

    I think Neil Harvey is stiff to miss out, as is Lindwall. Aside from that no arguments with that team. gpr1 to pick a team based purely on averages is ridiculous, and to claim AB was any chop as a spinner because he took one haul against a team that had no idea how to play spin, and no intention to show any respect for it, on a very helpful deck specifically tailored to expose this shortcoming, is equally ludicrous.

  • Cs1987 on July 20, 2009, 10:32 GMT

    I think the jury have done a good job, although the Readers' XI is closer to my list. My main issue with the voting is forcing the voters to choose two spinners - I would have picked Alan Davidson instead of O'Reilly. It would be ridiculous if the voters are forced to pick two spinners and only two pace bowlers for West Indies All Time XI.

  • subhashn on July 20, 2009, 10:15 GMT

    I would certainly think/analyse differently and include Alan Davidson,Ray Lindwall & Bill Ponsford in the team.This could displace Deniss Lillee,Bill Oreily & Arthur Morris.A strong case can also be made for Neil Harvey in place of Allan Border.These are the changes I propose in the Australian xi of my choice !!!

  • lyoung on July 20, 2009, 10:04 GMT

    If nothing else, that Australian bowling line-up would have to be the greatest sledging attack of all time.

  • Ozcricketwriter on July 20, 2009, 9:59 GMT

    Bill O'Reilly out Richie Benaud in. Seriously, you are ignoring Benaud, who not only at the time held the world record for most wickets, but was also a spin and occasional pace bowler and batsman to boot. What are you guys on to put O'Reilly in ahead of Benaud? I have to question the wisdom of putting Trumper in. Fair enough so batting was tougher in those days but an average of 37 just doesn't warrant selection. Lawry could have been there, or even Bob Simpson, let alone Matthew Hayden. For me, Bill Lawry was the man that should have been there at the top. I am a bit unsure about Chappell being there either and wonder if perhaps Ricky Ponting should take his spot. Certainly, whoever is deciding on these lists is a fair way off. Yes, it is surprising to miss out on Ponting, put simply because he should be there. Stats might not say everything, but he has the 2nd highest average ever and the most runs. That says enough for me.

  • Aussieicon91 on July 20, 2009, 9:43 GMT

    People hate on Hayden more because of his personality on the field and in the media, his "us against them" attitude. Pretty pathetic, TBH. Only Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting are ahead of him, of his generation and should be ranked in the top 10 openers of alltime, whereas no other Aussie should. Easily Australia's best opener ever and one of the finest overall.

  • Greg.of.Qld on July 20, 2009, 9:15 GMT

    If this is the best u can guys do you need to get another job. WIth a combined test average of 0 between the lot of the "expert" selection panel I would rather let averages do the talking. A few weeks ago you rate Hayden in the top 10 batsmen of all time. Ricky Ponting has had about the third highest rating of all time. Don Bradman had a book of his best his best team of all time and didnt include Warne and included CLarrie Grimmet. He also had his Best Ashes team of all time and didnt include Greg Chappell, Victor Trumper or Alan Border or Waugh. Maybe you guys knew better then Bradman. So on averages here is the best side Australian batting side Hayden 50.7, Lawry 47.5, Bradman 99, G Chappell 53, Ponting 56, Border 50, Gilchrist 48, Keith Miller, Warne, Lillee, McGrath. Warne as is a better choice as spinner, one of the all time great slippers, bats ok and is a great bowler. So on that basis he beats Grimmett and O Reilly. And rememeber AB took a 7 for as a par timer

  • ballonbat on July 20, 2009, 9:11 GMT

    I find it amazing how short-sighted so many readers are. All they want is the top modern players like Waugh, Ponting and Hayden. There is a great deal more to considerin selecting the side. The earlier batsmen played on far more difficult pitches for instance. Everyone now is obsessed with stats. Hayden's average is a good one but look at how many other contemporary batsmen have averages over 50. Look at how Sehwag murders the same attacks Hayden takes on, for example. Two things that don't seem to have been considered are fielding and captaincy. I would definitely include Neil Harvey at the expense of Border and, unless you can't trust what looks to me to be the greatest batting lineup in cricket, you have to drop Gilchrist for Don Tallon. With such great bowlers, you need an impeccable keeper - Gilchrist is above average, that's all. Finally, Lindwall for McGrath (or perhaps Davidson for variety). Again, the obsession is with statistics in choosing McGrath.

  • Bagapath on July 20, 2009, 9:11 GMT

    good team. glad hayden is not selected. sick of fan boys going gaga over him without understanding the fact that he could never have scored as many runs against genuinely great fast bowlers with his faulty back foot play.trumper and morris, by all accounts, would have done well in any era.

    like the three pacers and two spinners bowling attack. this could quite possibly be the best team to come out of this series.

  • kiddsilver on July 20, 2009, 8:45 GMT

    I think it is rare to have an Aussie team with two spinners in any era, so to include two in the ALL TIME XI is a little baffling. I think as good as O'Rielly is, he should be replaced with another seamer, preferably Tommo. I am also assuming Border will be captaining the side, if not he does not merit a place based on his batting alone. Any of the Waugh brothers would do a better job.

  • youfoundme on July 20, 2009, 8:38 GMT

    Honestly, I'd pick Ponting over Chappell any day.

  • Sir_Francis on July 20, 2009, 8:36 GMT

    I'm ABs biggest fan - A hero to my generation. And I can't stand Neil Harvey's criticisms but Harvey was better. I would have thought that Gideon Haigh would have convinced his fellow voters. After 39 tests he was averaging nearly 62 (better than Headley & Pollock over more tests) and then over the next 40 it plummeted and he finished with an average of under 49. The reason was he played too long. And the reason he did that was that Australia had a very weak team at the time (after Bradman - before Benaud) and obviously felt Australia needed him. He shouldn't be punished or forgotten for this. It's plain to me he was Australia's 2nd best batsman ever (and I'm a massive fan of AB, Greg Chappell and, of course, Douggie). I demand a recount!

  • mitchy.cric on July 20, 2009, 8:32 GMT

    keith miller only average 41 with the bat, i'd replace him with steve waugh. victor trumper struggled to average 40 with the bat, id prefer my opener to average 45 to 50 therefore Matty hayden and therefore combining with JL instead of morris would create one of the best opening partnerships of all time. you need someone like JL in the team any for his many many attributes. greg chappell is up himself really, someone like ricky ponting whos stats are better any way should be in the team, either border or chappell can make way for ponting. bill oreillys stats are second rate to warne and warne can bat aswell so id boot out tiger for another seamer for either binga or mcdermott possibly.

  • Bharat1981 on July 20, 2009, 8:07 GMT

    What is easily available or seen by man is not considered as valuable. Normally, that is the principle adopted by majority of the people. That is why so many old names are found in the list. Sidestepping the fact that the old players had very few opposition teams maybe one or two teams only. the modern day players play against a variety of opposition at different venues. Taking that fact into consideration, my all-time for Australis is: batting - Hayden, Langer, Bradman, Ponting, Greg Chappell, Border WK - Adam Gilchrist All-rounder - Keith Miller Bowling - Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Dennis Lillee, 12th man - Steve Waugh

  • tammimi2010 on July 20, 2009, 8:07 GMT

    I really do not count Ricky ponting amongst the greats anyways, why would I call him great when he grew up under the shadows of great players. He was never under pressure. Now that he is under pressure, he fails miserably.

  • Nipun on July 20, 2009, 8:03 GMT

    Matthew Hayden Justin Langer Sir Donald Bradman Greg Chappell Steve Waugh Allan Border Adam Gilchrist Kieth Miller Shane Warne Dennis Lillee Glenn McGrath This is MY Personal XI.

  • sacricketlegend on July 20, 2009, 7:59 GMT

    I disagree with the selection of Arthur Morris. I believe he was chosen just because of his performance in 1948. That's why I believe Bill Ponsford deserves to be in there. With Greg Chappell vs Rocky Ponting - I just couldn't leave Punter out. Then you get to Border and Waugh, and frankly, it doesn't matter who you choose, either would be just as brilliant as the other. Also, why is Australia playing two spinners? I'd rather have Spofforth 'The Demon' in there than O'Reilly.

  • Sorcerer on July 20, 2009, 7:43 GMT

    I wonder how Thomson would have made to this list given that he was an England-specialist and his average is near to 30.

    I would have chosen Stan McCabe and Grimmett instead of Trumper and O'Reilly.

  • shakilakther01 on July 20, 2009, 7:39 GMT

    The player who can not play decent off spin or have problems when ball started to swing in Readers XI shows how far we read history. I have no problem McCabe is not there but no Harvey really baffle me. Regarding McGrath in other age whether he would have been consider great bowler. He is modern day Statham - all line, length. He got most of his wickets through unforced error due to modern day's players tendency of playing shot. I would pick Thommo/ Lindwell / Davidson ahead of him. Also picking davidson would have bring variety as none of the pacer in either team is lefty.

  • Warney708 on July 20, 2009, 7:38 GMT

    Obviously we know that the selectors have a tough job on this one - as with all the other countries but wouldn't it have been better to go for a Hayden/Ponsford combination at the top?? (They were the ones that I and the rest of the readers went for!) With possbily Ponting coming in for Chappell or Border?? Just a thought, as Ponting is one of the greatest modern batsmen around with an average to boot - 56!!! - From a South African

  • Serenity on July 20, 2009, 7:32 GMT

    Delighted to see 10 of my 11 selections agreed with the experts final choice. I picked Ponting ahead of Greg Chappell, in part because he will be Australia's highest runscorer (probably reaching the mark at Edgbaston).

    Looking forward to contributing to the other all time XI's in due course

  • cutter9 on July 20, 2009, 7:17 GMT

    how can ricky ponting our second highest soon to be highest run scorer miss out and steve wauch to

  • pchats_2000 on July 20, 2009, 7:15 GMT

    Great Team, however I would like some small changes. My whole impression is that Morris' selection is based on one ashes series, therefore Ponsford deserves a better deal. Another suggestion is that in a team which cannot accomodate Ponting & Harvey. why not have a better wicketkeeper like Oldfield or Healy and not a 'keeper chosen for his batting alone. If Border does not lead this team surely then Harvey would be a better bet as a batsman. Atleast more watchable. The Pace attack too is one dimensional, no left handers, may be Allan Davidson should be given a thought?

  • Ilin on July 20, 2009, 7:15 GMT

    c'mmon man,its such a false team.withot STEVE WAUGH there is no cricket team of austalia is complete.infact ponting is a much much better option than that jinxed greg chappell.its such a shame for jury as not putting stephen waugh in best 11.

  • RoshanF on July 20, 2009, 7:09 GMT

    In a team boasting Trumper,Morris, Bradman, Chappell, Border and Miller who do you need most - a wicketkeeper batsman whose keeping is good without being great or an out-an-out brilliant keeper. And mind you he will be keeping to Warne and O'Reilly apart from Lillee, McGrath and Miller. Surely the wonderful Don Tallon should have been there with Healy as second choice. And I think Harvey should have been 12th man.

  • Theena on July 20, 2009, 7:09 GMT

    I can see the rationale for including Chappel over Ponting - say what you will but the younger Chappel faced bowling attacks that were far more penetrative than Ponting has in his time - but I would take Miller out and include Steve Waugh in it - and move Waugh above Border in the batting line up.

    Also like someone else said, I can't see why you would need Miller in as an all rounder when you have Lillie, McGrath, O Rilley and Warne in your team. Plus with a batting lineup like THAT why would you need a guy like Miller. His position is neither here nor there in the lineup, a complete waste of the man's skills.

    Can't argue with Trumper's selection, but Hayden would partner him, surely? Oh do the selectors think having two batsmen who are equally aggressive, wouldn't be prudent?

  • Deepak_Mehta on July 20, 2009, 6:58 GMT

    This is not fair for Ponting... just watch his past performance as a player. He should be in first XI. Otherwise team is good but with Ponting in; it will make it Great All Time XI.

  • kirby51137 on July 20, 2009, 6:50 GMT

    Surprised to see Allan Border in the judge's side ahead of players like Ponting, Harvey and Steve Waugh.

    Personally, I would have gone with Ponsford, Morris, Bradman, Harvey, G. Chappell, Miller, Gilchrist, Lindwall, Warne, Lillee, McGrath with Ponting as 12th man.

  • Ozthewombat on July 20, 2009, 6:49 GMT

    I disagree with Ponting being chosen for the readers XI, the reason for this is that unlike Border, Waugh or Chappell he has never had to face a real West Indian Pace barrage. Ponting always appears to be struggling when the team and himself is under pressure.

  • Yutairui on July 20, 2009, 6:48 GMT

    What a tremendous team. And extradordinarily brave of the Selectors to have gone against the flow of public opinion (including my own) to make up the team. Any of the nominees would have been worthy members and the final selection is a brilliant one. The only problem with this team would be finding an opposition capable of matching it. I could imagine a couple of days of bliss watching the top order demolish any attack thrown up against it, then the tantalizing appeal of the lethal bowling attack ripping to shreds any line-up brave enough to go up against it. Outstanding work!

  • sushantsingh on July 20, 2009, 6:42 GMT

    yes the team looks good but if i would have been judge i would have picked harvey & s.waugh in middle order , also the wicketkeeper should be bert oldfield. it doen't mean that chappell , border, gilchrist are inferior to them but it is very difficult to pick from such a great players,overall satisfied.

  • cricket-crazee on July 20, 2009, 6:29 GMT

    I would certainly go with Reader's XI openers, Hayden and Ponsford, due to their dominance and temperament. Other than that, would agree with Cricinfo XI for putting Ponting in as a 12th man! So the Team Australia in Matthew Hayden, Bill Ponsford, Don Bradman, Greg Chappell, Allan Border (c), Adam Gilchrist (w), Keith Miller, Shane Warne, Bill O'Reilly, Dennis Lillee, Glenn McGrath, Ricky Ponting (12th) looks a real gem of a team, with perfect balance of technique, aggression and mental toughness.

  • vibh_ch on July 20, 2009, 6:20 GMT

    The best possible selected team from an expansive list of great Australian cricketers.I am happy that 8 from my team have made it.Though I was disappointed not to find Jeff Thomson in the list of nominees.

  • denzil.correa on July 20, 2009, 6:02 GMT

    A similar exercise I did a few weeks back:

    http://indianpremierleagueblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/eleven-of-australias-best.html

    My differences, Ponsford for Morris and Lindwall for McGrath.

    Reasons: Morris was a big time Bedser bunny. 18 times in Test cricket is a lot and great players don't have bogey bowlers.

    Lindwall with pace and fire would be much better choice than a line & length man. I was disappointed him not making the cut.

    Happy to see Border, Trumper and Miller making it. Agree with 'chessmaster198' on Victor Trumper.

    Grossly disagree with the 12th man. In my books, it should be Neil Harvey

  • yourpustudor on July 20, 2009, 5:59 GMT

    It is clear by the selection that the achievements of the modern day aussie teams means about as much as Chris Martins batting average.Surely their dominance over the last decade started at the top of the order, for Hayden and Ponting not to be selected it almost smacks of personal dislike for these two blokes

  • santa1969 on July 20, 2009, 5:39 GMT

    Not surprising that Ponting did not make the First X1.

    Just look at the jury panel. The one and only Peter Roebuck who would be Ponting's biggest fan (tongue in cheek).

    My comment and feeling on Mr Roebuck can be for another forum otherwise, not a bad X1.

    I would put Ponting in and Keith Miller out. You don't need an all rounder with a team of this quality.

  • mahmood_chowdhury on July 20, 2009, 5:36 GMT

    Awful selection by the jury. Surely the juries were biased. No Ricky Ponting!!!! No Hayden!!!! Cricinfo Readers XI is far more accurate.

  • alchemist_sandeep on July 20, 2009, 5:32 GMT

    it is very good team. but i think steve waugh should be there.he is a batsman who scored more than 10000 runs and oz's best captain

  • since7 on July 20, 2009, 5:31 GMT

    ITs a brilliant team though Punter should have been there..Geeg chappell did play a greater attack than ponting ever has but the consistency and the flair that ponting has shown for years together must have been taken into account.I feel the usual "OLd is Gold" bias has made you take a decision.But dont you think that is a tad unfair on the present lot who have to achieve double the amount to achieve the half the fame that players of yesteryear had

  • Engle on July 20, 2009, 5:26 GMT

    As I suspected, players have been picked as an accumulation of individuals, not as a balanced team. What's the point of having 2 LBG in Warne and O'Reilly ? And what can Miller do that other batsmen cannot or Lillee, McGrath as bowlers cannot ? Fact is that no selector dare pick an Aussie team without Miller and O'Reilly. Even though as individuals they're better, I would replace them with Noble and Thommo respectively. That way when an AT England XI come calling with Jardine at helm and Larwood, Tyson, Trueman to attack, Aus can respond in kind.

    BTW, good selection of Trumper, A.Border and G.Chappell.

  • boris6491 on July 20, 2009, 5:22 GMT

    I think Punter should have been in this team. He is soon to be Australia's greatest ever test batsman. Certainly nobody is denying the style and grace of Greg Chappell, but I really do feel he was, as a run scorer, inferior to Ponting. Otherwise excellent selection. Particularly glad to see Gilly in there as I thought that a lot of people would have perhaps voted for Marsh. But without doubt, he has transformed the wicketkeepers role in the 21st century and has himself emerged into one of the greatest players to play the game.

  • 68704 on July 20, 2009, 5:17 GMT

    What a team! Yet I might have had a couple of different names. Surely Morris was Bedser"s bunny if my memory serves me right. I would have looked at Niel harvey , though I must confess that it would have been a tight one. Miller was the darling of Australia and maybe the numbers do not add up, because one did get the feeling that he was above all this mundane stuff that cricketers chose like averages and numbers. I would have also chosen Benaud, for definitely he was the best captain Australia had. Not Bradman, whose 48 team was easily the best of all time. A wonderful trip down memory lane! I am glad that Gilchrist was the unanimous choice and not Tallon , however good he might have been. Sridhar

  • peeeeet on July 20, 2009, 4:58 GMT

    I agree with leaving Matthew Hayden out...while he was definately a great batsman, a lot of his real big scores were made against weaker teams (e.g. 380 against Zimbabwe!!). And I think we can all safely say that batting 20-30 years ago was much more difficult than in recent times, hence the leaving out of Ponting too. Still would have liked to have seen Waugh in - such a tough cricketer and was the heart and soul of a team for so long too. But this team that is picked is awesome, and it's going to be hard for other teams to match up to them I think.

  • stevo198 on July 20, 2009, 4:46 GMT

    I selected pretty much the same team as the readers. You could have picked two or maybe even three world beating teams from the names that were put forward though.

  • chessmaster28 on July 20, 2009, 4:38 GMT

    Good selection; I thought that possibly Ricky Ponting and Ray Lindwall could have snuck into the XI somewhere but the penultimate selection is obviously an outstanding team. It is quite true that Victor Trumper has not quite got the recognition he so obviously deserves

  • redneck on July 20, 2009, 4:32 GMT

    one can not knock the team chosen as australia's all time XI and there are always going to be legends who dont make the XI. however border not being selected by the cricinfo readers is a bit sad, as mr coward stats above border never receives his due recognition for laying the foundation for 20 years of success, and so often single handedly guiding australia through the 80's which without him would have otherwise left the nation embarrased! one more mistake i believe has been made, fast bowling is and always has been australia's forte and therefor should warrent 3 spots with only 1 for a spinner. how often apart from the odd scg test and the ones played in the sub continent have australia played 2 full time spinners? even when we had warne and macgill it wasnt often! 2 spinners would be suitable for sri lanka and india all time test 11's but not for aus!

  • ithkrall on July 20, 2009, 4:15 GMT

    Great selections, now there's a team that could play against any other World 11 and give them a run for their money.

    Just a comment on the post by Warwick Franks about Bradmans domination. Im not saying Bradman isn't the most dominating batsman in cricket history. What I am saying is numerous sports have thrown up the "So awesome no one comes close" type players.

    Wayne Gretsky of the NHL was a nine time MVP and has 2857 point, the next closest is on 1887. That is bradmanesque. Jerry rice the NFL wide receiver has 50% more catches and yards than the next closest player. Michael Schumacher has 91 Forumla one wins, 40 more than his nearest rival.

    Bradman was unique for cricket, but the super player is not just confined to him.

  • tammimi2010 on July 20, 2009, 4:13 GMT

    I selected the same team, well almost, I wanted Steve Waugh in for Greg Chappell

  • Aussieicon91 on July 20, 2009, 4:11 GMT

    Great work, leaving out Australia's best Opening Batsman (Matthew Hayden) and Australia's 2nd best ever batsman (Ricky Ponting). I can understand Victor Trumper being selected but Arthur Morris? Seriously? He averaged 37 after Bradman retired, FFS, and didn't even average over 50 overall despite playing under the influence of Bradman. What a joke, the Cricinfo Readers XI is far more accurate.

  • cricketfan09 on July 20, 2009, 3:58 GMT

    Outstanding selection; No Steve Waugh ?! But, who will he replace? Border maybe. Though at #5, AB sounds better than Waugh. But, with Bradman at #3, who cares who is at #5? Can't wait to see the other teams' all-time XI. Enjoyed the exercise. Who is the captain though? Will Warne be allowed to lead at least this aussie team?!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • cricketfan09 on July 20, 2009, 3:58 GMT

    Outstanding selection; No Steve Waugh ?! But, who will he replace? Border maybe. Though at #5, AB sounds better than Waugh. But, with Bradman at #3, who cares who is at #5? Can't wait to see the other teams' all-time XI. Enjoyed the exercise. Who is the captain though? Will Warne be allowed to lead at least this aussie team?!

  • Aussieicon91 on July 20, 2009, 4:11 GMT

    Great work, leaving out Australia's best Opening Batsman (Matthew Hayden) and Australia's 2nd best ever batsman (Ricky Ponting). I can understand Victor Trumper being selected but Arthur Morris? Seriously? He averaged 37 after Bradman retired, FFS, and didn't even average over 50 overall despite playing under the influence of Bradman. What a joke, the Cricinfo Readers XI is far more accurate.

  • tammimi2010 on July 20, 2009, 4:13 GMT

    I selected the same team, well almost, I wanted Steve Waugh in for Greg Chappell

  • ithkrall on July 20, 2009, 4:15 GMT

    Great selections, now there's a team that could play against any other World 11 and give them a run for their money.

    Just a comment on the post by Warwick Franks about Bradmans domination. Im not saying Bradman isn't the most dominating batsman in cricket history. What I am saying is numerous sports have thrown up the "So awesome no one comes close" type players.

    Wayne Gretsky of the NHL was a nine time MVP and has 2857 point, the next closest is on 1887. That is bradmanesque. Jerry rice the NFL wide receiver has 50% more catches and yards than the next closest player. Michael Schumacher has 91 Forumla one wins, 40 more than his nearest rival.

    Bradman was unique for cricket, but the super player is not just confined to him.

  • redneck on July 20, 2009, 4:32 GMT

    one can not knock the team chosen as australia's all time XI and there are always going to be legends who dont make the XI. however border not being selected by the cricinfo readers is a bit sad, as mr coward stats above border never receives his due recognition for laying the foundation for 20 years of success, and so often single handedly guiding australia through the 80's which without him would have otherwise left the nation embarrased! one more mistake i believe has been made, fast bowling is and always has been australia's forte and therefor should warrent 3 spots with only 1 for a spinner. how often apart from the odd scg test and the ones played in the sub continent have australia played 2 full time spinners? even when we had warne and macgill it wasnt often! 2 spinners would be suitable for sri lanka and india all time test 11's but not for aus!

  • chessmaster28 on July 20, 2009, 4:38 GMT

    Good selection; I thought that possibly Ricky Ponting and Ray Lindwall could have snuck into the XI somewhere but the penultimate selection is obviously an outstanding team. It is quite true that Victor Trumper has not quite got the recognition he so obviously deserves

  • stevo198 on July 20, 2009, 4:46 GMT

    I selected pretty much the same team as the readers. You could have picked two or maybe even three world beating teams from the names that were put forward though.

  • peeeeet on July 20, 2009, 4:58 GMT

    I agree with leaving Matthew Hayden out...while he was definately a great batsman, a lot of his real big scores were made against weaker teams (e.g. 380 against Zimbabwe!!). And I think we can all safely say that batting 20-30 years ago was much more difficult than in recent times, hence the leaving out of Ponting too. Still would have liked to have seen Waugh in - such a tough cricketer and was the heart and soul of a team for so long too. But this team that is picked is awesome, and it's going to be hard for other teams to match up to them I think.

  • 68704 on July 20, 2009, 5:17 GMT

    What a team! Yet I might have had a couple of different names. Surely Morris was Bedser"s bunny if my memory serves me right. I would have looked at Niel harvey , though I must confess that it would have been a tight one. Miller was the darling of Australia and maybe the numbers do not add up, because one did get the feeling that he was above all this mundane stuff that cricketers chose like averages and numbers. I would have also chosen Benaud, for definitely he was the best captain Australia had. Not Bradman, whose 48 team was easily the best of all time. A wonderful trip down memory lane! I am glad that Gilchrist was the unanimous choice and not Tallon , however good he might have been. Sridhar

  • boris6491 on July 20, 2009, 5:22 GMT

    I think Punter should have been in this team. He is soon to be Australia's greatest ever test batsman. Certainly nobody is denying the style and grace of Greg Chappell, but I really do feel he was, as a run scorer, inferior to Ponting. Otherwise excellent selection. Particularly glad to see Gilly in there as I thought that a lot of people would have perhaps voted for Marsh. But without doubt, he has transformed the wicketkeepers role in the 21st century and has himself emerged into one of the greatest players to play the game.