Black Caps v Pakistan
-
@Siam Braces?
He expected a wicket each ball ...
Rember the Aussie crowds getting into him because he appealed so much, so they kept appealing with each ball he bowled.
(That may have been a result of one particular spell but I can't remember exact details.)
-
-
IMO Vettori is the best spinner to play for NZ (Grimmett is probably the best NZ-born spinner), although Braces could have done well if he'd kept playing instead of retiring as soon as he reached the 1000/100 double.
I think we can safely say now that Kane is our best test batsman, and also that Taylor is second (Taylor has surpassed everyone else IMO - we're only not lauding him as our best ever because of Kane), but it's still very close between Kane and Taylor across all international formats (Taylor has the better ODI record, most total runs and longevity).
Hadlee is a serious contender for all time world XIs, while Kane currently is nowhere near that, but as above, if he keeps at his current trajectory for the rest of his career, they would probably be close.
Kane is currently 30, debuted at 20, and has played 82 tests for ~7,000 runs, so about 85 runs/test. If he plays another 7-8 years and 60 tests at the current rate, he would have around 12,000 runs by the end at an average of 53 or so. Some of the current crop will join him there, but that would probably see him in the top 30-40 batsmen of all time.
That said, Kane had a relatively poor start (averaged 41 for the first 5 years) and has averaged over 65 since then at 95 runs/test, so that would calculate to 12,500 runs and an average of around 61. That average would probably see him in a lot more conversations - 12,000 runs at 53 is great, 13,000 runs at 61 is another level.
-
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
I think we can safely say now that Kane is our best test batsman, and also that Taylor is second (Taylor has surpassed everyone else IMO - we're only not lauding him as our best ever because of Kane), but it's still very close between Kane and Taylor across all international formats (Taylor has the better ODI record, most total runs and longevity).
I'm a huge Taylor fan but he can put up all the runs he wants from now until the end of his career and he probably won't be able to get past Crowe.
Crowe has legitimate players from the late 80s/early 90s era who rate him as one of the best, if not the best, batsman they bowled against. Taylor even at his peak still had obvious idiosyncrasies (particularly early in an innings) which hold him back from being in those discussions. Very similar to the second half of Fleming's career.
-
@SynicBast said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
But it is just fucking criminal that NZ will only play 4 tests in 2021
Kane is doing his best to schedule a fifth mid-year.
We tentatively have six schedule next summer.
-
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
IMO Vettori is the best spinner to play for NZ (Grimmett is probably the best NZ-born spinner), although Braces could have done well if he'd kept playing instead of retiring as soon as he reached the 1000/100 double.
I think we can safely say now that Kane is our best test batsman, and also that Taylor is second (Taylor has surpassed everyone else IMO - we're only not lauding him as our best ever because of Kane), but it's still very close between Kane and Taylor across all international formats (Taylor has the better ODI record, most total runs and longevity).
Hadlee is a serious contender for all time world XIs, while Kane currently is nowhere near that, but as above, if he keeps at his current trajectory for the rest of his career, they would probably be close.
Kane is currently 30, debuted at 20, and has played 82 tests for ~7,000 runs, so about 85 runs/test. If he plays another 7-8 years and 60 tests at the current rate, he would have around 12,000 runs by the end at an average of 53 or so. Some of the current crop will join him there, but that would probably see him in the top 30-40 batsmen of all time.
That said, Kane had a relatively poor start (averaged 41 for the first 5 years) and has averaged over 65 since then at 95 runs/test, so that would calculate to 12,500 runs and an average of around 61. That average would probably see him in a lot more conversations - 12,000 runs at 53 is great, 13,000 runs at 61 is another level.
Kane is basically NZs Bradman if that makes sense, prior to him we’d never had anyone who averaged over 50 for any decent length of time whereas every other country did ( although Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe only have one each I think ).
Probably fair to say he is number one in the world at test level right now although Smith and Kohli are only a big innings or two away from usurping him.
-
@rotated said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
I think we can safely say now that Kane is our best test batsman, and also that Taylor is second (Taylor has surpassed everyone else IMO - we're only not lauding him as our best ever because of Kane), but it's still very close between Kane and Taylor across all international formats (Taylor has the better ODI record, most total runs and longevity).
I'm a huge Taylor fan but he can put up all the runs he wants from now until the end of his career and he probably won't be able to get past Crowe.
Crowe has legitimate players from the late 80s/early 90s era who rate him as one of the best, if not the best, batsman they bowled against. Taylor even at his peak still had obvious idiosyncrasies (particularly early in an innings) which hold him back from being in those discussions. Very similar to the second half of Fleming's career.
Taylor is one of the best "very good" batsmen around in that he's not an all time world great but is the kind of guy that would make any current international squad one way or another. ( ie he's no Steve Smith but would still walk into an Aussie squad ).
Crowe played in a tougher era than Taylor overall so for that reason would be rated higher, Richie Richardson and Gordon Greenidge both got knighted with records inferior to Crowe on paper and they never had to face their own bowlers !
I still reckon Taylor has done exceptionally well for a guy with a few strange shots and quirks. cricinfo tells me he has just one fifty in his last 13 innings though, should this be cause for a bit of alarm ?
-
-
@canefan said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@MN5 he's come a long way from being known as the guy with fast hands who could slog it over cow corner
....and thank goodness for that. He could have easily become another Marshall ( either one ), Vincent, How, Fulton......( shudders )
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@rotated said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
I think we can safely say now that Kane is our best test batsman, and also that Taylor is second (Taylor has surpassed everyone else IMO - we're only not lauding him as our best ever because of Kane), but it's still very close between Kane and Taylor across all international formats (Taylor has the better ODI record, most total runs and longevity).
I'm a huge Taylor fan but he can put up all the runs he wants from now until the end of his career and he probably won't be able to get past Crowe.
Crowe has legitimate players from the late 80s/early 90s era who rate him as one of the best, if not the best, batsman they bowled against. Taylor even at his peak still had obvious idiosyncrasies (particularly early in an innings) which hold him back from being in those discussions. Very similar to the second half of Fleming's career.
Taylor is one of the best "very good" batsmen around in that he's not an all time world great but is the kind of guy that would make any current international squad one way or another. ( ie he's no Steve Smith but would still walk into an Aussie squad ).
Crowe played in a tougher era than Taylor overall so for that reason would be rated higher, Richie Richardson and Gordon Greenidge both got knighted with records inferior to Crowe on paper and they never had to face their own bowlers !
I still reckon Taylor has done exceptionally well for a guy with a few strange shots and quirks. cricinfo tells me he has just one fifty in his last 13 innings though, should this be cause for a bit of alarm ?
Crowe's record is a little blemished by his start (as usual for Kiwi greats) and end (in that he struggled with his knees at the end), but he has NZ's highest first class average and was widely acknowledged in his heyday as one of the top batsmen in the world, so he will always be in conversations about great Kiwi batsmen (as is right and proper), and his on drive was poetry in motion, so that has to count for something.
Taylor has the most test, ODI (and international) runs of any NZ batsman, a higher average in both formats than Crowe, more centuries and 50s, and also more times past 50 per innings (0.29 in tests and 0.33 in ODIs, Crowe was 0.26 and 0.27 respectively). I know there's the thought that bowling was probably tougher to face back then, particularly the West Indies and Pakistan (the contrast has been painfully obvious this season...), but the South African, Aussie, English and Sri Lankan attacks have been much stronger in Taylor's era than they were in Crowe's era. Taylor and Crowe both had limited exposure to Zimbabwe, and Sri Lanka was the 80s version of Bangladesh, so they haven't had huge amounts of difference in terms of playing the bunnies.
That on drive though... I still put Taylor ahead of Crowe, but it's not by much.
-
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@rotated said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
I think we can safely say now that Kane is our best test batsman, and also that Taylor is second (Taylor has surpassed everyone else IMO - we're only not lauding him as our best ever because of Kane), but it's still very close between Kane and Taylor across all international formats (Taylor has the better ODI record, most total runs and longevity).
I'm a huge Taylor fan but he can put up all the runs he wants from now until the end of his career and he probably won't be able to get past Crowe.
Crowe has legitimate players from the late 80s/early 90s era who rate him as one of the best, if not the best, batsman they bowled against. Taylor even at his peak still had obvious idiosyncrasies (particularly early in an innings) which hold him back from being in those discussions. Very similar to the second half of Fleming's career.
Taylor is one of the best "very good" batsmen around in that he's not an all time world great but is the kind of guy that would make any current international squad one way or another. ( ie he's no Steve Smith but would still walk into an Aussie squad ).
Crowe played in a tougher era than Taylor overall so for that reason would be rated higher, Richie Richardson and Gordon Greenidge both got knighted with records inferior to Crowe on paper and they never had to face their own bowlers !
I still reckon Taylor has done exceptionally well for a guy with a few strange shots and quirks. cricinfo tells me he has just one fifty in his last 13 innings though, should this be cause for a bit of alarm ?
Crowe's record is a little blemished by his start (as usual for Kiwi greats) and end (in that he struggled with his knees at the end), but he has NZ's highest first class average and was widely acknowledged in his heyday as one of the top batsmen in the world, so he will always be in conversations about great Kiwi batsmen (as is right and proper), and his on drive was poetry in motion, so that has to count for something.
Taylor has the most test, ODI (and international) runs of any NZ batsman, a higher average in both formats than Crowe, more centuries and 50s, and also more times past 50 per innings (0.29 in tests and 0.33 in ODIs, Crowe was 0.26 and 0.27 respectively). I know there's the thought that bowling was probably tougher to face back then, particularly the West Indies and Pakistan (the contrast has been painfully obvious this season...), but the South African, Aussie, English and Sri Lankan attacks have been much stronger in Taylor's era than they were in Crowe's era. Taylor and Crowe both had limited exposure to Zimbabwe, and Sri Lanka was the 80s version of Bangladesh, so they haven't had huge amounts of difference in terms of playing the bunnies.
That on drive though... I still put Taylor ahead of Crowe, but it's not by much.
I remember when Crowe passed away there was a bit of debate on here as to his standing in the echelon of greats. Kiwi great ? fuck yes, no denying it and an automatic pick in any all time XI.
It's when you look at his standing compared to the rest of the world that things get a bit murkier. Of his era I'd regard the likes of Gavaskar, Greg Chappell, Border, Richards and Miandad as genuine hall of famers. I'd put Crowe in a group slightly lower with other fine players like Greenidge, Haynes, Gooch, Gower, Richardson and a few others. Bloody good, but possibly not genuine greats ( maybe Gooch deserves to be in the first list ? he faced the greatest fast bowlers in history as an opener in that era more than anyone )
For what it's worth I'd have Taylor in the equivalent group for his era, but I think Crowe was better than Rossco and neither are as good as KW.
The argument on here was ( I think ) that Crowe was as great as Paddles which is simply not true.
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@canefan said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@MN5 he's come a long way from being known as the guy with fast hands who could slog it over cow corner
....and thank goodness for that. He could have easily become another Marshall ( either one ), Vincent, How, Fulton......( shudders )
We can thank Crowe for that - he became Taylor's mentor and instilled some discipline into him and a drive to achieve a few records, not just a have bit of fun with the bat.
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@rotated said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
I think we can safely say now that Kane is our best test batsman, and also that Taylor is second (Taylor has surpassed everyone else IMO - we're only not lauding him as our best ever because of Kane), but it's still very close between Kane and Taylor across all international formats (Taylor has the better ODI record, most total runs and longevity).
I'm a huge Taylor fan but he can put up all the runs he wants from now until the end of his career and he probably won't be able to get past Crowe.
Crowe has legitimate players from the late 80s/early 90s era who rate him as one of the best, if not the best, batsman they bowled against. Taylor even at his peak still had obvious idiosyncrasies (particularly early in an innings) which hold him back from being in those discussions. Very similar to the second half of Fleming's career.
Taylor is one of the best "very good" batsmen around in that he's not an all time world great but is the kind of guy that would make any current international squad one way or another. ( ie he's no Steve Smith but would still walk into an Aussie squad ).
Crowe played in a tougher era than Taylor overall so for that reason would be rated higher, Richie Richardson and Gordon Greenidge both got knighted with records inferior to Crowe on paper and they never had to face their own bowlers !
I still reckon Taylor has done exceptionally well for a guy with a few strange shots and quirks. cricinfo tells me he has just one fifty in his last 13 innings though, should this be cause for a bit of alarm ?
Crowe's record is a little blemished by his start (as usual for Kiwi greats) and end (in that he struggled with his knees at the end), but he has NZ's highest first class average and was widely acknowledged in his heyday as one of the top batsmen in the world, so he will always be in conversations about great Kiwi batsmen (as is right and proper), and his on drive was poetry in motion, so that has to count for something.
Taylor has the most test, ODI (and international) runs of any NZ batsman, a higher average in both formats than Crowe, more centuries and 50s, and also more times past 50 per innings (0.29 in tests and 0.33 in ODIs, Crowe was 0.26 and 0.27 respectively). I know there's the thought that bowling was probably tougher to face back then, particularly the West Indies and Pakistan (the contrast has been painfully obvious this season...), but the South African, Aussie, English and Sri Lankan attacks have been much stronger in Taylor's era than they were in Crowe's era. Taylor and Crowe both had limited exposure to Zimbabwe, and Sri Lanka was the 80s version of Bangladesh, so they haven't had huge amounts of difference in terms of playing the bunnies.
That on drive though... I still put Taylor ahead of Crowe, but it's not by much.
I remember when Crowe passed away there was a bit of debate on here as to his standing in the echelon of greats. Kiwi great ? fuck yes, no denying it and an automatic pick in any all time XI.
It's when you look at his standing compared to the rest of the world that things get a bit murkier. Of his era I'd regard the likes of Gavaskar, Greg Chappell, Border, Richards and Miandad as genuine hall of famers. I'd put Crowe in a group slightly lower with other fine players like Greenidge, Haynes, Gooch, Gower, Richardson and a few others. Bloody good, but possibly not genuine greats ( maybe Gooch deserves to be in the first list ? he faced the greatest fast bowlers in history as an opener in that era more than anyone )
For what it's worth I'd have Taylor in the equivalent group for his era, but I think Crowe was better than Rossco and neither are as good as KW.
The argument on here was ( I think ) that Crowe was as great as Paddles which is simply not true.
I'd have Gooch as an all time hall of famer as an opener, it probably has to be judged differently to other batting positions. Can add Tendulkar and Lara to that list as well (their careers overlapped with Crowe by 5 or so years). Where do people see Steve Waugh in this - his career overlapped with Crowe's by quite a bit, but Waugh was more of an all-rounder early in his career, not the specialist batsman he later became.
-
@Siam said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@LABCAT said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
Peter Williams relaying a conversation with ICC chairman, ex NZC chairman, stating that we lose 100 grand for every test.
T20 earns, but tests cost too much - 6 tests at home and we're in the hole more than half a million.Reality sucks !
I think it is closer to a million per test NZC is losing, unless the test is against one of the big three.
Just repeating Peter Williams on the radio today. He said 100k
According to an article in The Telegraph written by a UK journo Tim Wigmore, that was in my local newspaper, NZC loses $830,000 per test if we aren't playing Aust, India or England. So what @LABCAT said.
Pakistan has 43 players and coaches/support staff in NZ with the Shaheens (Pakistan A) also playing matches. The accommodation and travel costs must be significant.
-
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@rotated said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
I think we can safely say now that Kane is our best test batsman, and also that Taylor is second (Taylor has surpassed everyone else IMO - we're only not lauding him as our best ever because of Kane), but it's still very close between Kane and Taylor across all international formats (Taylor has the better ODI record, most total runs and longevity).
I'm a huge Taylor fan but he can put up all the runs he wants from now until the end of his career and he probably won't be able to get past Crowe.
Crowe has legitimate players from the late 80s/early 90s era who rate him as one of the best, if not the best, batsman they bowled against. Taylor even at his peak still had obvious idiosyncrasies (particularly early in an innings) which hold him back from being in those discussions. Very similar to the second half of Fleming's career.
Taylor is one of the best "very good" batsmen around in that he's not an all time world great but is the kind of guy that would make any current international squad one way or another. ( ie he's no Steve Smith but would still walk into an Aussie squad ).
Crowe played in a tougher era than Taylor overall so for that reason would be rated higher, Richie Richardson and Gordon Greenidge both got knighted with records inferior to Crowe on paper and they never had to face their own bowlers !
I still reckon Taylor has done exceptionally well for a guy with a few strange shots and quirks. cricinfo tells me he has just one fifty in his last 13 innings though, should this be cause for a bit of alarm ?
Crowe's record is a little blemished by his start (as usual for Kiwi greats) and end (in that he struggled with his knees at the end), but he has NZ's highest first class average and was widely acknowledged in his heyday as one of the top batsmen in the world, so he will always be in conversations about great Kiwi batsmen (as is right and proper), and his on drive was poetry in motion, so that has to count for something.
Taylor has the most test, ODI (and international) runs of any NZ batsman, a higher average in both formats than Crowe, more centuries and 50s, and also more times past 50 per innings (0.29 in tests and 0.33 in ODIs, Crowe was 0.26 and 0.27 respectively). I know there's the thought that bowling was probably tougher to face back then, particularly the West Indies and Pakistan (the contrast has been painfully obvious this season...), but the South African, Aussie, English and Sri Lankan attacks have been much stronger in Taylor's era than they were in Crowe's era. Taylor and Crowe both had limited exposure to Zimbabwe, and Sri Lanka was the 80s version of Bangladesh, so they haven't had huge amounts of difference in terms of playing the bunnies.
That on drive though... I still put Taylor ahead of Crowe, but it's not by much.
I remember when Crowe passed away there was a bit of debate on here as to his standing in the echelon of greats. Kiwi great ? fuck yes, no denying it and an automatic pick in any all time XI.
It's when you look at his standing compared to the rest of the world that things get a bit murkier. Of his era I'd regard the likes of Gavaskar, Greg Chappell, Border, Richards and Miandad as genuine hall of famers. I'd put Crowe in a group slightly lower with other fine players like Greenidge, Haynes, Gooch, Gower, Richardson and a few others. Bloody good, but possibly not genuine greats ( maybe Gooch deserves to be in the first list ? he faced the greatest fast bowlers in history as an opener in that era more than anyone )
For what it's worth I'd have Taylor in the equivalent group for his era, but I think Crowe was better than Rossco and neither are as good as KW.
The argument on here was ( I think ) that Crowe was as great as Paddles which is simply not true.
I'd have Gooch as an all time hall of famer as an opener, it probably has to be judged differently to other batting positions. Can add Tendulkar and Lara to that list as well (their careers overlapped with Crowe by 5 or so years). Where do people see Steve Waugh in this - his career overlapped with Crowe's by quite a bit, but Waugh was more of an all-rounder early in his career, not the specialist batsman he later became.
Steve Waugh became Border mark II in the middle order. Genuine great no doubt. For point of reference his twin is in the "very good" category.
Tendulkar and Lara ? I don't need to talk them up but I don't really consider them part of Crowes era by that much ( although there was obviously some overlap ).
Good call on Gooch, he also had a terrible start to his test career but rectified that and then some. I think you're right, so much tougher as an opener ( which makes Gavaskars record even more impressive than it is )
-
So what are the rules these days around minimum overs being bowled in a day?
Only 85 bowled yesterday, I assumed they'd start early today to make up for the 5 lost overs, but appears not.
Why do they have minimum overs when in reality it means diddly squat?
-
@Gunner said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
So what are the rules these days around minimum overs being bowled in a day?
Only 85 bowled yesterday, I assumed they'd start early today to make up for the 5 lost overs, but appears not.
Why do they have minimum overs when in reality it means diddly squat?
They usually play later rather than start earlier. The punishments are fines and being docked ICC championship points, with suspensions for captains for repeat offences.
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@rotated said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Godder said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
I think we can safely say now that Kane is our best test batsman, and also that Taylor is second (Taylor has surpassed everyone else IMO - we're only not lauding him as our best ever because of Kane), but it's still very close between Kane and Taylor across all international formats (Taylor has the better ODI record, most total runs and longevity).
I'm a huge Taylor fan but he can put up all the runs he wants from now until the end of his career and he probably won't be able to get past Crowe.
Crowe has legitimate players from the late 80s/early 90s era who rate him as one of the best, if not the best, batsman they bowled against. Taylor even at his peak still had obvious idiosyncrasies (particularly early in an innings) which hold him back from being in those discussions. Very similar to the second half of Fleming's career.
Taylor is one of the best "very good" batsmen around in that he's not an all time world great but is the kind of guy that would make any current international squad one way or another. ( ie he's no Steve Smith but would still walk into an Aussie squad ).
Crowe played in a tougher era than Taylor overall so for that reason would be rated higher, Richie Richardson and Gordon Greenidge both got knighted with records inferior to Crowe on paper and they never had to face their own bowlers !
I still reckon Taylor has done exceptionally well for a guy with a few strange shots and quirks. cricinfo tells me he has just one fifty in his last 13 innings though, should this be cause for a bit of alarm ?
Crowe's record is a little blemished by his start (as usual for Kiwi greats) and end (in that he struggled with his knees at the end), but he has NZ's highest first class average and was widely acknowledged in his heyday as one of the top batsmen in the world, so he will always be in conversations about great Kiwi batsmen (as is right and proper), and his on drive was poetry in motion, so that has to count for something.
Taylor has the most test, ODI (and international) runs of any NZ batsman, a higher average in both formats than Crowe, more centuries and 50s, and also more times past 50 per innings (0.29 in tests and 0.33 in ODIs, Crowe was 0.26 and 0.27 respectively). I know there's the thought that bowling was probably tougher to face back then, particularly the West Indies and Pakistan (the contrast has been painfully obvious this season...), but the South African, Aussie, English and Sri Lankan attacks have been much stronger in Taylor's era than they were in Crowe's era. Taylor and Crowe both had limited exposure to Zimbabwe, and Sri Lanka was the 80s version of Bangladesh, so they haven't had huge amounts of difference in terms of playing the bunnies.
That on drive though... I still put Taylor ahead of Crowe, but it's not by much.
I remember when Crowe passed away there was a bit of debate on here as to his standing in the echelon of greats. Kiwi great ? fuck yes, no denying it and an automatic pick in any all time XI.
It's when you look at his standing compared to the rest of the world that things get a bit murkier. Of his era I'd regard the likes of Gavaskar, Greg Chappell, Border, Richards and Miandad as genuine hall of famers. I'd put Crowe in a group slightly lower with other fine players like Greenidge, Haynes, Gooch, Gower, Richardson and a few others. Bloody good, but possibly not genuine greats ( maybe Gooch deserves to be in the first list ? he faced the greatest fast bowlers in history as an opener in that era more than anyone )
For what it's worth I'd have Taylor in the equivalent group for his era, but I think Crowe was better than Rossco and neither are as good as KW.
The argument on here was ( I think ) that Crowe was as great as Paddles which is simply not true.
I'd have Gooch as an all time hall of famer as an opener, it probably has to be judged differently to other batting positions. Can add Tendulkar and Lara to that list as well (their careers overlapped with Crowe by 5 or so years). Where do people see Steve Waugh in this - his career overlapped with Crowe's by quite a bit, but Waugh was more of an all-rounder early in his career, not the specialist batsman he later became.
Steve Waugh became Border mark II in the middle order. Genuine great no doubt. For point of reference his twin is in the "very good" category.
Tendulkar and Lara ? I don't need to talk them up but I don't really consider them part of Crowes era by that much ( although there was obviously some overlap ).
Good call on Gooch, he also had a terrible start to his test career but rectified that and then some. I think you're right, so much tougher as an opener ( which makes Gavaskars record even more impressive than it is )
Lara and Tendulkar overlapped Crowe's career by as much as Gavaskar and more than G Chappell, and S Waugh (debuted in 1985) overlapped by more than either but obviously wasn't Border MkII until Border retired in 1994 (just before Crowe in 1995). Of players who had 10 years concurrent with Crowe and were all time greats, it's probably Border, Waugh, Richards, Miandad and Gooch. If dropping to 5 years, Gavaskar, Tendulkar and Lara come into the conversation as well.
