To do with hundreds...

Following Symonds' ton...

A breakdown of centuries by country:

Code:


Country      No              No
              of              of
          Players            100s

Aus          115              686
BD            8              13
Eng          149              725
Ind          68              354
NZl          60              200
Pak          58              304
SAf          60              249
SrL          25              151
WIn          69              408
Zim          16              42

Total        627            3132

627 players in total only counts Kepler Wessels once, even though he scored hundreds for both Aus and SAf and is included in each country's individual total.

Amazing difference in the number of players between Eng & Aus.

South Africa poor performers for a so-called major nation; lends weight to the theory they can't produce world class batsmen.

Aussies haven't needed as many players because of superior ability.

Kiwis also poor performers.

Zimbabwe and Bangladesh should never have been allowed to play test cricket.

Red wrote:South Africa poor performers for a so-called major nation; lends weight to the theory they can't produce world class batsmen.

Aussies haven't needed as many players because of superior ability.

Kiwis also poor performers.

Zimbabwe and Bangladesh should never have been allowed to play test cricket.

Off the top of my head I'd say that the Kiwi's have done well relative to India & Pakistan - they really didn't play a lot of Tests prior to 30 years ago.

England have played a lot more tests than Australia swell which has to be taken into account.

of the top of my head they have played at least 100 more tests over the years.

"they have played at least 100 more tests over the years" shit eh!

Windies & Aus average just under 6 tons per century maker. My initial thought was that was a bloody lot ............... no, haven't changed my mind - that's surprisingly high.

Pakistan's is quite high as well.

Actually england have played 177 more tests than Australia**

Does anybody know why the huge difference?

Did England play teams like SA more frequently than us in the past?






**we have more test wins that england despite that.

I think they did PDY. England, SA and oz were the virtual founding members of test cricket and the poms played the Saffas a lot early and we only played them a few times in the first three or so decades of the 20th century.

yeah i assume lot's of 6 game series in that period vs SA which would explain the huge difference.

Poms also played the Snoozers a lot in the 50s while we refused to coz they was shite . . .

Australia played NZ only once before 1973.

England took the role of fostering the development of emerging Test countries. Australia didn't.

The upshot is an inherent bias in Tesst stats prior to the 1970's as between England and Australia. England's batsmen and bowlers were both significantly advantaged.

peterg wrote:Australia played NZ only once before 1973.

England took the role of fostering the development of emerging Test countries. Australia didn't.
The upshot is an inherent bias in Tesst stats prior to the 1970's as between England and Australia. England's batsmen and bowlers were both significantly advantaged.

Australia sent teams to NZ, just didn't call them tests.

They were usually second elevens, or worse.

England once played 2 test series simultaneously against Aust and West Indies!

peterg wrote:They were usually second elevens, or worse.

Yet they still creamed the snoozers. Is getting thrashed by batsman A and Bowler B better for you than getting thrashed by bowler D and batsman F ? In today's terms they were A tours.

In olden days many tours by "England" teams were privately organised and by no means representative. Even as late as 1951/52 England sent a virtual second XI to India, but their matches were still called Tests. This is one reason England has had far more Test players than Australia. There are cases of players representing England in Tests, but who otherwise never played first-class cricket.

There were "England" teams paying Tests simultaneously in South Africa and Australia in 1891/92, and in New Zealand and West Indies in 1929/30. In the latter case, neither team could be called representative, and only one player from each team made it into the first Ashes Test of 1930. Among those omitted was Andrew Sandham, who scored 325 and 50 in his last "Test" in the West Indies, but was never selected for England again.

I remember the last Oz second eleven went to NZ the same summer as the firsts were in India then South Africa. Dennis Lillee, Greg Chappell and other future Test players in John Inverarity, Terry Jenner and Kerry O'Keeffe were part of the squad, which was captained by Sam Trimble, but Rod Marsh was not chosen, Queenslander John McLean being preferred. The tour was ruined by the weather but the two spinners impressed, both playing Test cricket within nine months. However, captain Trimble, despite a double century in the last 'international', continued to be ignored by the selectors. Of the squad, Greg Davies of NSW (who was once 12th man), his State team-mate Tony? Steele, and WA's Derek Chadwick were the only players to never play for Australia, although few besides Lillee and Chappell ever did so with great distinction.

Peter Bedford of Victoria was considered a near-certainty to make the tour but made himself unavailable because the tour cut into his VFL season with South Melbourne. That season he won the Brownlow Medal and his cricket career tapered off from that point onward.

Geoff Davies, Fred

I knew it was one or the other. Greg D was a rugby player, also from NSW? I'm presuming I guessed Steele's first name.

He was known as Tony. He disappeared after the 1970-71 season.

Another bloke conspicuously absent from that tour was John Benaud. The team was picked around the same time as the Fiasco of the Boots.

There were some strange selections ... Alan Thomson was on that tour, if I remember rightly.

Was Jock Irvine on the tour to India and South Africa?

Froggy Thomson was considered the next big thing in Australian fast bowling at the time of that tour. The media sure got that one wrong. Meanwhile, the bloke who actually was to become the next big thing in Australian fast bowling was also on the tour - DKL.

Jock was in SA, with Ray Jordon and Laurie Mayne playing the 'extras' roles. None of them played first class cricket after the 70-71 season. Were they chosen because they were 30 and expendable on that ridiculously-organised tour?

Thommo at that time was the form bowler in the country and had single-handedly won several games for Victoria.