Aussies tops? Just a moment ...

By JOHN BENAUD

Before basketball hoops began appearing on every second suburban garage gable in the 80s, Australian boys mostly played pick-up cricket in the local park, barefooted if possible.

Half-a-dozen lads would gather after school, split into two teams, toss and go for it.

My circle of mates included a boy whose approach differed: he was affectionately known as Fipsy, and he played cricket with himself.

He would hammer in the stumps at each end of the concrete pitch, pad up and then, with the bat in his left hand, roll the ball with his right from the bowler's end.

He would then race the ball down the pitch and, from the batsman's end, belt the ball to the boundary, and then fetch it.

The coach told us Fipsy was "touched," possibly a polite reference to his eccentricity, but more likely explaining his non-selection.

Fipsy sprang to mind with all this chatter about Steve Waugh's Australian team being the best the world has seen, better than Don Bradman's 1948 side, better than Clive Lloyd's West Indies of the 80s.

Such silliness raises questions. For instance, how should we rate the ponderous Darren Lehmann against the twinkle-toed Neil Harvey or the panther-like Lloyd?

Waugh even likened Matthew Hayden to the incomparable Bradman.

Why should we be surprised? We've had "The Black Bradman" (George Headley), "The Next Bradman" (Doug Walters), so why not "The Left-Handed Bradman"?

Would Waugh's praise of Hayden be less effusive if we reminded him that not so many test series ago he was running between the wickets with a talented left-handed batsman, Allan Border?

But it's the Fipsy factor - how would a champion team fare playing against itself? - which might help get this puffery into perspective.

Naturally, it's all hypothetical, but if Glenn McGrath can make such a mess of left-handers such as Brian Lara, Gary Kirsten and Marcus Trescothick, why not Hayden and Justin Langer?

The younger Hayden was always troubled by bounce and movement, the result of his commitment to a front-foot prop.

Langer is not great, just gritty. The former Australian leg-spinner Kerry O'Keeffe thinks watching him bat is like "watching bananas brown."

He seems to take more blows to the helmet than most. Brett Lee would appreciate that.

Langer is often out leg-before, beaten by pace, and has a weakness to the ball moving in.

Anyone rating Hayden and Langer as the greatest opening pair of all time should first rate Desmond Haynes and Gordon Greenidge.

They succeeded consistently against so many of the greats: Hadlee, Dev, Imran, Akram, Botham, Lillee, Lawson, Alderman, Hogg, McDermott.

Those names remind us of the depth to world cricket in those days. In the main, the fast bowling attacks today are no-names. Witness England in Perth.

Lloyd's attack was Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Garner, Croft. That raises another question about the present Australian team: without McGrath, how great would they be?

First, there would be the large psychological benefit for the opponents. It's improbable that Jason Gillespie, Lee and Andy Bichel, good as they are, could maintain pressure like McGrath, a real champion.

Evidence most quoted to support Australia's "We Are The Greatest" claim is the heady record run of victories.

Be prepared for more. They are on the way to a clean sweep in this series against England, who seem on the edge of physical disintegration, if not mental.

Then, next summer Australia have the good luck to be playing a test against Bangladesh, whose world standing reminds us that back in 1999, Waugh's team began their record-winning run against Zimbabwe.

Lloyd's men had no such luxuries. In time, this era of world cricket will be regarded as one of historic mediocrity.

That, when combined with the Fipsy factor, prompts the unpatriotic conclusion that Lloyd's team were the best: the track record of Haynes and Greenidge against the great fast men of their era better equips them to handle Roberts and Co than Hayden and Langer's feasting on small fry.

- INDEPENDENT