Battle of the Australians: Bill Brown vs Hugh Trumble

[puddleduck]

Are we ignoring Mark Waugh's bowling or something?

Err no, but since Steve took more wickets in just about every form of the game, and at a lower average and economy rate, I think it would be fair to say are you ignoring Steves bowling?

Would you pick Ramprakash or Hick ahead of Atherton or Vaughan? They almost certainly had more talent than almost every English batsman of the last decade and a half, but they certainly didn't have as much success.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Steve's bowling was great. But like I said, Mark was the better one, Steve the greater. Mark just didn't apply himself and didn't want to be great as bad as Waugh.
And Waugh was a pretty good skipper, 10 times the skipper Punter will ever be...

 

[MUFC1987]

Err no, but since Steve took more wickets in just about every form of the game, and at a lower average and economy rate, I think it would be fair to say are you ignoring Steves bowling?

Would you pick Ramprakash or Hick ahead of Atherton or Vaughan? They almost certainly had more talent than almost every English batsman of the last decade and a half, but they certainly didn't have as much success.

I meant the fact that Steve's bowling stats were listed, but not Mark's.

 

[aussie1st]

What a great pairing

I will have to go Steve, his batting was so gritty and he did it tough against the best attacks in the world. Also looked to be a decent bowler, Mark probably was too but in the end Steve scored much more runs than his brother so has to be him.

 

[puddleduck]

I meant the fact that Steve's bowling stats were listed, but not Mark's.

Fair enough he does have over 50 test wickets, so they should probably be listed in the stats, although hopefully people are clicking on their cricinfo profiles anyway just to have a quick check even if they did get to witness both players terrorise England for most of their life

 

[barmyarmy]

Well in test terms it was certainly Steve Waugh but if you compare their ODI records MW is streets ahead.
I'm going to buck the trend and go with Mark.

 

[Left_Hander]

Steve Waugh. He had that special ability to grind out and innings when Australia needed it. He was a great captain and a handy bowler.

 

[dtrain]

Mark Waugh is one of my favourite players of all time. His batting was great to watch, I just loved the way he batted in both forms of the game. His chipping of the ball over mid on was such a quality shot, it's something I've tried to adopt into my own game. I remember watching the World Cup where he was on fire too, such a classy opener and was definately in peak form at the time. His bowling was above average, I personally think Steve was the better bowler of the two, Steve's slower ball deceived the worlds greatest batsmen consistently. Mark's fielding and in particular his slips work is second to none that I have seen. Some of the catches he took would be dropped by so many slips fielders going around today, such a sharp eye and quick reflexes, and made everything look so easy. Such a tough match up to pick by the way.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Steve Waugh, I think Mark was more talented and he could've been allot more successful with his batting. He was a lazy cricketer. As far as bowling goes I think Steve was better. Mark was just brought into the attack to brack a partnership or buy a wicket.

 

[Wildwil]

Steve Waugh He had the nick to get his team out of tough positions. He was a great captain.

 

[nightprowler10]

7-3 to Steve.


Round 1, Battle 10

Charlie Turner

Test: 17 matches, 101 wickets @ 16.53, 11 5-fers, 2 10-fers

vs

Shane Warne

Test: 140 matches, 2958 runs @ 16.61, 11 50s | 685 wickets @ 25.25, 36 5-fers, 10 10-fers
ODI: 194 matches, 1018 runs @ 13.05, 1 50 | 293 wickets @ 25.73, 1 5-fer

 

[MUFC1987]

I think Warne gets it just on sheer number of wickets, I mean you can't leave out a World Record Holder can you? Both seem to be pretty similar in terms of skill though, Turner probably would get the nod against a lot of other players in this.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Warne, as above, on sheer number of wickets. It's hard to vote against the only current player to make it into Wisden's five cricketers of the century.

 

[puddleduck]

I've got to go Warne as well. One of the greatest spin bowlers of all time, and has helped to play a big part in making leg-spin bowling fashionable again.

His sheer number of wickets is as we all know record breaking, and despite the fact that Turner certainly seems a talented individual, Warne has been successful in a time that is widely accepted as being one of the least helpful to bowlers.

 

[The Spin]

Yep, Warne as well here. Tonnes of wickets as well as sheer consistency gives him my vote