New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2
-
@Paekakboyz said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
Hmm would tuffey or pocock happen to have a decent 10 or 11 average?
Sorry it isn't them
-
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
It wasn't the two Blairs (Hartland and Pocock) was it? Not sure if they played enough games though. They were bad enough that Bryan Young was considered a reliable opener for a period though.
Pocock is a YES - Hartland is poised on 9 games though with the outstanding average of 16.83
Trevor Franklin then? I remember being shocked by his average given the reverence that he and John Wright get as an opening pair (not that it's undeserved, shows how much the game has changed, and probably also how much our standards have risen)
-
@Paekakboyz said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
For openers would the guy who lost a tooth in England be a contender? Cant recall his name right now
Daniel Flynn? Not sure if he opened the batting much, think he played more at 3 and 5.
-
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
It wasn't the two Blairs (Hartland and Pocock) was it? Not sure if they played enough games though. They were bad enough that Bryan Young was considered a reliable opener for a period though.
Pocock is a YES - Hartland is poised on 9 games though with the outstanding average of 16.83
Trevor Franklin then? I remember being shocked by his average given the reverence that he and John Wright get as an opening pair (not that it's undeserved, shows how much the game has changed, and probably also how much our standards have risen)
Good call. Franklin it is. So just a 10 and 11 to name. Neither of them played this century if that helps ....
-
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
It wasn't the two Blairs (Hartland and Pocock) was it? Not sure if they played enough games though. They were bad enough that Bryan Young was considered a reliable opener for a period though.
Pocock is a YES - Hartland is poised on 9 games though with the outstanding average of 16.83
Trevor Franklin then? I remember being shocked by his average given the reverence that he and John Wright get as an opening pair (not that it's undeserved, shows how much the game has changed, and probably also how much our standards have risen)
Good call. Franklin it is. So just a 10 and 11 to name. Neither of them played this century if that helps ....
What about Dion Nash at 10?
Edit: maybe Simon '97 test wickets' Doull at 11?
-
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
It wasn't the two Blairs (Hartland and Pocock) was it? Not sure if they played enough games though. They were bad enough that Bryan Young was considered a reliable opener for a period though.
Pocock is a YES - Hartland is poised on 9 games though with the outstanding average of 16.83
I suspect Hartland won't get to add to that tally of 9 games.
-
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
It wasn't the two Blairs (Hartland and Pocock) was it? Not sure if they played enough games though. They were bad enough that Bryan Young was considered a reliable opener for a period though.
Pocock is a YES - Hartland is poised on 9 games though with the outstanding average of 16.83
Trevor Franklin then? I remember being shocked by his average given the reverence that he and John Wright get as an opening pair (not that it's undeserved, shows how much the game has changed, and probably also how much our standards have risen)
Good call. Franklin it is. So just a 10 and 11 to name. Neither of them played this century if that helps ....
What about Dion Nash at 10?
Edit: maybe Simon '97 test wickets' Doull at 11?
No and no. Older than them.
-
-
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
It wasn't the two Blairs (Hartland and Pocock) was it? Not sure if they played enough games though. They were bad enough that Bryan Young was considered a reliable opener for a period though.
Pocock is a YES - Hartland is poised on 9 games though with the outstanding average of 16.83
Trevor Franklin then? I remember being shocked by his average given the reverence that he and John Wright get as an opening pair (not that it's undeserved, shows how much the game has changed, and probably also how much our standards have risen)
Before I became such a stats nerd Trevor Franklin was always one of my favourites, not sure why cos he was no Davey Warner in terms on getting the run rate going....
-
@MN5 said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
It wasn't the two Blairs (Hartland and Pocock) was it? Not sure if they played enough games though. They were bad enough that Bryan Young was considered a reliable opener for a period though.
Pocock is a YES - Hartland is poised on 9 games though with the outstanding average of 16.83
Trevor Franklin then? I remember being shocked by his average given the reverence that he and John Wright get as an opening pair (not that it's undeserved, shows how much the game has changed, and probably also how much our standards have risen)
Before I became such a stats nerd Trevor Franklin was always one of my favourites, not sure why cos he was no Davey Warner in terms on getting the run rate going....
He did his best to survive the new ball in the late 80's, I'm thinking that was probably a good reason why
-
@Donsteppa said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@MN5 said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
It wasn't the two Blairs (Hartland and Pocock) was it? Not sure if they played enough games though. They were bad enough that Bryan Young was considered a reliable opener for a period though.
Pocock is a YES - Hartland is poised on 9 games though with the outstanding average of 16.83
Trevor Franklin then? I remember being shocked by his average given the reverence that he and John Wright get as an opening pair (not that it's undeserved, shows how much the game has changed, and probably also how much our standards have risen)
Before I became such a stats nerd Trevor Franklin was always one of my favourites, not sure why cos he was no Davey Warner in terms on getting the run rate going....
He did his best to survive the new ball in the late 80's, I'm thinking that was probably a good reason why
His cricinfo bio is hardly full of praise for the poor bugger
Lanky New Zealand opener Trevor Franklin knew only one way to play, and it didn't involve too many horizontal-bat shots. In 21 Tests he scored his runs at a rate of 27 runs per 100 balls. That equates to 1.6 runs per over, and makes him slower than those great blockers Chris Tavaré (33) and Jimmy Adams (38). But despite boring spectators and bowlers into submission Franklin was a popular figure, mainly because he was so unlucky with injuries. Most famously, he had his leg shattered when he was run over by a luggage trailer at Gatwick Airport in 1986, and he didn't play a Test for nearly two years. He wasn't endowed with good luck. On that tour he also broke a thumb, and in 1991-92 had his forearm smashed by David Lawrence. Even though it did take seven hours, his first and only Test hundred, against England at Lord's in 1990, was extremely well received
-
@Smudge said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
It wasn't the two Blairs (Hartland and Pocock) was it? Not sure if they played enough games though. They were bad enough that Bryan Young was considered a reliable opener for a period though.
Pocock is a YES - Hartland is poised on 9 games though with the outstanding average of 16.83
I suspect Hartland won't get to add to that tally of 9 games.
My memories of Blair Hartland is of him getting about as many runs off his helmet as he did off his bat.
-
-
@Godder said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
Franklin and Wright had tremendous stats as a pair.
Is John Bracewell our highest averaging 10? No real idea for 11, but guessing some random old timer like Collinge.
According to who ? were our standards really that bad that words like that get thrown around ?
-
@MN5 said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Godder said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
Franklin and Wright had tremendous stats as a pair.
Is John Bracewell our highest averaging 10? No real idea for 11, but guessing some random old timer like Collinge.
According to who ? were our standards really that bad that words like that get thrown around ?
Yes. Wright and Edgar are usually seen as the NZ gold standard of the era, but Wright and Franklin had much better stats as a pair (as distinct from their individual stats).
-
@MN5 said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Donsteppa said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@MN5 said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
It wasn't the two Blairs (Hartland and Pocock) was it? Not sure if they played enough games though. They were bad enough that Bryan Young was considered a reliable opener for a period though.
Pocock is a YES - Hartland is poised on 9 games though with the outstanding average of 16.83
Trevor Franklin then? I remember being shocked by his average given the reverence that he and John Wright get as an opening pair (not that it's undeserved, shows how much the game has changed, and probably also how much our standards have risen)
Before I became such a stats nerd Trevor Franklin was always one of my favourites, not sure why cos he was no Davey Warner in terms on getting the run rate going....
He did his best to survive the new ball in the late 80's, I'm thinking that was probably a good reason why
His cricinfo bio is hardly full of praise for the poor bugger
Lanky New Zealand opener Trevor Franklin knew only one way to play, and it didn't involve too many horizontal-bat shots. In 21 Tests he scored his runs at a rate of 27 runs per 100 balls. That equates to 1.6 runs per over, and makes him slower than those great blockers Chris Tavaré (33) and Jimmy Adams (38). But despite boring spectators and bowlers into submission Franklin was a popular figure, mainly because he was so unlucky with injuries. Most famously, he had his leg shattered when he was run over by a luggage trailer at Gatwick Airport in 1986, and he didn't play a Test for nearly two years. He wasn't endowed with good luck. On that tour he also broke a thumb, and in 1991-92 had his forearm smashed by David Lawrence. Even though it did take seven hours, his first and only Test hundred, against England at Lord's in 1990, was extremely well received
His name on the Honours Board at Lords. Top work that man.
-
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
And for extra cricketing fun, which 2 openers who played 10 games or more have the lowest average? There are 15 averaging below 30 so there are a few to choose from!
The Braces coaching era will have a few; he was pretty pig headed and those guys had multiple lives. How, Cumming, Bell, Papps.
Spearman for sure was sub 30 with one century but may have only played 8-9 tests?
