Other Cricket
-
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
If a spinner is needed it's a toss up between Warnie and
Murali. No one else comes close.Edited to exclude chuckers
You’re such an Aussie.
His action was cleared at the time however dodgy it looked
The rules were changed to suit
Might be a bit late to reopen the investigation and have his 800 wickets expunged from the record books to be fair
-
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
If a spinner is needed it's a toss up between Warnie and
Murali. No one else comes close.Edited to exclude chuckers
do you exclude drug cheats too?
-
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
If a spinner is needed it's a toss up between Warnie and
Murali. No one else comes close.Edited to exclude chuckers
You’re such an Aussie.
His action was cleared at the time however dodgy it looked
The rules were changed to suit
fair play - they found when they tested that actions that looked clean actually had significant flex/bend.
Murali could bowl his arsenal in a cast. I'm good with that.
-
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
If a spinner is needed it's a toss up between Warnie and
Murali. No one else comes close.Edited to exclude chuckers
do you exclude drug cheats too?
You'll remember he DID actually serve time.
-
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
If a spinner is needed it's a toss up between Warnie and
Murali. No one else comes close.Edited to exclude chuckers
You’re such an Aussie.
His action was cleared at the time however dodgy it looked
The rules were changed to suit
fair play - they found when they tested that actions that looked clean actually had significant flex/bend.
Murali could bowl his arsenal in a cast. I'm good with that.
Muralis record is absolutely fucken ridiculous on paper. He took TWENTY TWO ten wicket hauls.
Quite a number of great bowlers didn’t take one ( Joel Garner, Bob Willis, Jeff Thomson among others )
-
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
If a spinner is needed it's a toss up between Warnie and
Murali. No one else comes close.Edited to exclude chuckers
do you exclude drug cheats too?
You'll remember he DID actually serve time.
Punishment by the same organisation that allowed Murali to play. So Murali's ok as well then?
It is fascinating to see people's response to him - he is a classic wedge issue; you're either on one side or t'other.
Ridiculous bowler. His flexibility was nuts - there was a photo of him holding his own forearm. -
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
If a spinner is needed it's a toss up between Warnie and
Murali. No one else comes close.Edited to exclude chuckers
do you exclude drug cheats too?
You'll remember he DID actually serve time.
Punishment by the same organisation that allowed Murali to play. So Murali's ok as well then?
It is fascinating to see people's response to him - he is a classic wedge issue; you're either on one side or t'other.
Ridiculous bowler. His flexibility was nuts - there was a photo of him holding his own forearm.Would you pick him over Warne in a team ?
-
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
Punishment by the same organisation that allowed Murali to play. So Murali's ok as well then?
Of course he is. Just that he'll never be as good in my eyes as any non-chucker.
Do I think he was good? Sure.
Do I think the ICC is run by the subcontinent to suit themsleves? Absolutely.
Do I get tired of certain members of world cricket screaming "RACIST!!!" whenever they don't like something? Fkn oath. -
NZ triple centurions are on odd bunch. Sutcliffe and Turner obviously class. I know bugger all about Roger Blunt. Mark Richardson and Devon Conway, both good, on the cusp of great. But then you have Ken Rutherford, Dean Brownie, Peter Fulton, Michael Papps and now Tom Bruce. All decent players, but none really set the world alight when given the chance at higher honours.
-
@Cyclops said in Other Cricket:
NZ triple centurions are on odd bunch. Sutcliffe and Turner obviously class. I know bugger all about Roger Blunt. Mark Richardson and Devon Conway, both good, on the cusp of great. But then you have Ken Rutherford, Dean Brownie, Peter Fulton, Michael Papps and now Tom Bruce. All decent players, but none really set the world alight when given the chance at higher honours.
I'd say the biggest factor there is 4-day FC cricket.
4 of them in the 90 odd years when NZ domestic FC was 3 days. Then 6 in 40 years since it became 4 layers.
Then consider, since about late 90s or 2000 the blackcap schedule that the top batsmen never play Plunket Shield. So it is the more fringe players dominating these fixtures.
Lastly. Quantity of oportunity. Sutcliffe played a Plunket Shield season of only 3 games each. Papps, Brownie etc plated 10 game seasons.
-
@Cyclops said in Other Cricket:
NZ triple centurions are on odd bunch. Sutcliffe and Turner obviously class. I know bugger all about Roger Blunt. Mark Richardson and Devon Conway, both good, on the cusp of great. But then you have Ken Rutherford, Dean Brownie, Peter Fulton, Michael Papps and now Tom Bruce. All decent players, but none really set the world alight when given the chance at higher honours.
Tom Bruce has the kind of record that should have got him capped in the longer form by now. What gives ?
A triple ton is still rare as all hell though, only 32 in test history. NONE scored between Lawrence Rowe getting 302 in 1974 until Graham Gooch got 333 in 1990.
It is a massive effort.
-
BLUNT, ROGER CHARLES, who died in London on June 22, aged 65, played in nine Test matches for New Zealand between 1929 and 1931, seven against England and two against South Africa. Beginning his career as a leg-break bowler, he developed into a very fine batsman. Against A. H. H. Gilligan's England team in New Zealand in 1929, he headed his country's Test bowling averages with nine wickets for 19 runs each. In the opening Test of that tour, which marked the entry of New Zealand into the top rank of cricket, he not only gained a match analysis of five wickets for 34 runs but, with 45 not out, was top scorer in first innings of 112.
In England in 1931, his 96 helped New Zealand to a highly creditable draw with England at Lord's after being 230 in arrears on the first innings. Until B. Sutcliffe surpassed his 7,769 runs in 1953, he was the highest-scoring New Zealand batsman in first-class cricket. In a dazzling display for Otago against Canterbury at Christchurch in 1931-32, he hit 338 not out, then the highest score ever achieved by a New Zealand cricketer, though Sutcliffe many years later made 355 and 385. Well-known in business circles in England and New Zealand, he was awarded the M.B.E. in 1965.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/roger-blunt-155462
Seems a handy player. I wouldn't put Rigor or Conway anywhere near great.
-
-
@dogmeat said in Other Cricket:
BLUNT, ROGER CHARLES, who died in London on June 22, aged 65, played in nine Test matches for New Zealand between 1929 and 1931, seven against England and two against South Africa. Beginning his career as a leg-break bowler, he developed into a very fine batsman. Against A. H. H. Gilligan's England team in New Zealand in 1929, he headed his country's Test bowling averages with nine wickets for 19 runs each. In the opening Test of that tour, which marked the entry of New Zealand into the top rank of cricket, he not only gained a match analysis of five wickets for 34 runs but, with 45 not out, was top scorer in first innings of 112.
In England in 1931, his 96 helped New Zealand to a highly creditable draw with England at Lord's after being 230 in arrears on the first innings. Until B. Sutcliffe surpassed his 7,769 runs in 1953, he was the highest-scoring New Zealand batsman in first-class cricket. In a dazzling display for Otago against Canterbury at Christchurch in 1931-32, he hit 338 not out, then the highest score ever achieved by a New Zealand cricketer, though Sutcliffe many years later made 355 and 385. Well-known in business circles in England and New Zealand, he was awarded the M.B.E. in 1965.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/roger-blunt-155462
Seems a handy player. I wouldn't put Rigor or Conway anywhere near great.
Any NZ batsman averaging over 40 is in the discussion, particularly given he was an opener.
Tom Latham has probaably gotten himself out of the discussion for an all time XI of late ( I'd go Turner and Sutcliffe with Wright getting an honourable mention ) but Rigor it must be said had an excellent record.
Conway obviously had a fantastic start but has petered off of late.
-
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Tom Bruce has the kind of record that should have got him capped in the longer form by now. What gives ?
There just haven't been the batting spaces opening up in the test 11.
Initially in his career Bruce was batting too low in FC cricket for CD to be properly considered in his early years, he needed to stretch and bat 3 or 4 at FC level to be, but he was batting 5 or 6.
During Bruce's FC span. A test middle order position has opened up only 3 times.
When Nicholls replaced Baz at number 5. At that stage Bruce had played 2 FC season and had a good record. but was batting low in the order and had a poor hundreds to 50s ratio. Nicholls and Young were the serious contenders for that spot at that time.
Bruce then didn't score a FC century for the next 4 seasons. At the end of that 4 years was the next time a place in the test 11 came up for grabs when Taylor retired and Mitchell took the spot.
The next time a post came up for grabs was when Ravindra replaced Nicholls. At that stage Bruce had a better FC record than Ravindra, but Rachin had the ODIs and had always been rated. Also Nicholls and Bruce are basically exactly the same age, at a time when the entire blackcaps test 11 were over 30.
It will be a record that in hindsight looks like a 'how did this never play a test?' but at the time he was ever really that close. Due to competition from others, a settled test 11, and Bruce himself not nailing his white ball opportunities or NZ A opportunities at times when his competitors did.
-
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
Form is temporary, class is permanent:
DRS must have been working overtime
-
@Cyclops said in Other Cricket:
NZ triple centurions are on odd bunch. Sutcliffe and Turner obviously class. I know bugger all about Roger Blunt. Mark Richardson and Devon Conway, both good, on the cusp of great. But then you have Ken Rutherford, Dean Brownie, Peter Fulton, Michael Papps and now Tom Bruce. All decent players, but none really set the world alight when given the chance at higher honours.
Rutherford's triple ton was a little on the farcical side. Yes, it was a first-class game, but only thanks to the vagaries of how random games in the UK are accorded first-class status. While the D.B (Brian) Close XI was arguably strong with Miandad, Boycott and a few other internationals, it was very much a festival game on the 1986 tour of England. Ruds was hungover and probably still partially steamed after Willie Watson's 21st pissup the night before.
Ken Rutherford's 317
The second match of New Zealand ’s tour with the England Lions looks to be petering out to a draw, due to bad weather. The concern for New ...
