Cricket - best ever, trivia etc
-
@bayimports said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@godder said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@bayimports said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@godder said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@dogmeat said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@mn5 Boycott and Gooch opened together in the late 70's early 80's until the ban for touring South Africa. Although they are both great openers the partnership never really thrived. Gooch and Atherton was more successful and Boycott and Edrich in the 60's.
'Modern' partnerships - Smith and de Villiers is worth a mention.
Further back Wright and Franklin
actually averaged over 50The opening pair of Wright and Franklin are underrated because everyone remembers Wright and Edgar (who scored more runs because they played together more, but at a lower average partnership). Granted, Franklin's main contribution was scoring not much off enough balls that Wright's class would take them to a decent partnership (Wright's average from 1988 to retirement in 1993 was over 47 which was excellent for an opener in that era), but 12th highest average ever of pairings with 1000+ runs is still impressive. Looking back at some of our opening pairs after they both retired, one suspects the selectors would happily have taken that.
From memory wasn't Franklin replaced with another test supremo in Blair Hartland?
Yes, going by Cricinfo, Wright played 3 more series after Franklin's last series at home vs Sri Lanka 1990-1 (famous for the first test in which Crowe got his 299). Hartland was the other opener for 2 series, then for Wright's last series (at home vs Australia 1993), Greatbatch was the other opener (did OK, better than Hartland at least). Hartland did one more series after that (tour of England 1994), then was dropped permanently. He probably made the selectors regret moving Franklin on.
While I'm waxing effusively about Wright, his average as captain was 48.63 compared to 35.83 when he wasn't captain, so his batting apparently thrived under that pressure.
@bovidae said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
Looking at that list Graeme Smith probably doesn't get the praise he deserves (outside of SA).
Agree, that list shows Smith and Gibbs are top drawer as well for modern partnerships.
yeah Wright was great for NZ, I just cant justify Franklin in the "greats" category
Franklin was always a personal favourite of mine for his sheer guts. I don’t think he knew too many horizontal bat shots though
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@dogmeat said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@mn5 You had me really worried.
This from cricinfo
So mainly a middle order but definitely opened. Stats guru never seems to be working but Howsstat vindicates me - sort of. McKenzie and Smith seem the better pair
Geez that shoots my Hayden and Langer theory out of the water. Both brilliant individuals but that stat shows it looked like it was more a case of one going cheaply but the other scoring large with Ponting/Hussey/Waugh/Martyn/Gilly etc. I thought they’d be up in the top five easily.
Greenidge and Haynes are even lower !
Were Hobbs and Sutcliffe basically the only decent England batsmen of their era ? Looks that way……
Apart from Hobbs and Washbrook perhaps?
-
Some surprising stats in that. Wouldn’t have put Gooch and Atherton that high and as for Greenidge and Haynes . Stupefied!
-
@catogrande said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
Some surprising stats in that. Wouldn’t have put Gooch and Atherton that high and as for Greenidge and Haynes . Stupefied!
Gooch was bloody good and Atherton was decent enough. Obviously they worked really well as a pair.
I’m still staggered how far up the list Wright and Franklin are.
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@catogrande said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
Some surprising stats in that. Wouldn’t have put Gooch and Atherton that high and as for Greenidge and Haynes . Stupefied!
Gooch was bloody good and Atherton was decent enough. Obviously they worked really well as a pair.
I’m still staggered how far up the list Wright and Franklin are.
Agreed. It must highlight just how dogshit the rest of our teams were at that time.
-
@catogrande said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@mn5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@catogrande said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
Some surprising stats in that. Wouldn’t have put Gooch and Atherton that high and as for Greenidge and Haynes . Stupefied!
Gooch was bloody good and Atherton was decent enough. Obviously they worked really well as a pair.
I’m still staggered how far up the list Wright and Franklin are.
Agreed. It must highlight just how dogshit the rest of our teams were at that time.
They weren’t though. Jones, Crowe and Greatbatch ( who was excellent at the start of his career ) were next in !
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@catogrande said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@mn5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@catogrande said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
Some surprising stats in that. Wouldn’t have put Gooch and Atherton that high and as for Greenidge and Haynes . Stupefied!
Gooch was bloody good and Atherton was decent enough. Obviously they worked really well as a pair.
I’m still staggered how far up the list Wright and Franklin are.
Agreed. It must highlight just how dogshit the rest of our teams were at that time.
They weren’t though. Jones, Crowe and Greatbatch ( who was excellent at the start of his career ) were next in !
Not a bad top five, but did you win much?
-
Took a chance to dip into Statsguru in the area of partnerships - a pair of batsmen having had a minimum of 20 partnerships.
Top 5 averages
Javed/Shoaib (1984-93) 91.82
Hobbs/Sutcliffe (1924-30) 87.86
Bradman/Woodfull (1928-34) 84.09
Mitchell/Nourse (1935-49) 83.61
Langer/Ponting (1998-2006) 82.16Top 5 for NZ
Crowe/Jones (1987-93) 64.39
Taylor/Watling (2010-20) 60.50
Watling/Williamson (2013-21) 59.33
Taylor/Williamson (2011-21) 58.81
Nicholls/Williamson (2016-21) 55.90Worst 5 averages (qualification 20 partnerships)
Bedi/Prasanna (1967-78) 8.18
Bedi/Chandrasekhar (1966-78) 8.45
Hazlewood/Lyon (2014-19) 8.85
Anderson/Prior (2008-14) 10.75
Ambrose/Bishop (1990-98) 10.95Worst 5 averages (qualification 10 partnerships as tailenders don't bat together so often)
McGrath/Warne (1994-2007) 5.58
Gillespie/MacGill (1999-2004) 5.70
Gabriel/Roach (2017-2021) 5.73
Chandrasekhar/Prasanna (1967-78) 6.00
Adams/Donald (1995-2001) 6.16Worst for NZ
Martin/Vettori (2004-11) 8.86
Wagner/Watling (2013-2020) 9.00
D. Bracewell/Southee (2011-15) 12.10
J. Bracewell/Smith (1984-1990) 13.36
Boult/Wagner (2012-22) 14.45Also spotted this lurking further down
Pocock/Young (!) (1993-97) 18.00
Other batting pairs with awful averages (20+ partnerships)
Gatting/Gooch 17.35
Cook/Stoneman 18.75
Blewett/M Waugh 21.76
Border/Wood 23.21
Hughes/Wood 23.76Interestingly Bairstow/Broad (14.50) has a worse average than Anderson/Broad (15.34)
-
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
-
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
-
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
I think it was @mariner4life who pointed out the discrepancy in home vs away for Warner. Being able to bat at home is one thing, dominating unfamiliar tracks against home attacks is another. For me, that's the mark of a great batsman.
-
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
I think it was @mariner4life who pointed out the discrepancy in home vs away for Warner. Being able to bat at home is one thing, dominating unfamiliar tracks against home attacks is another. For me, that's the mark of a great batsman.
Bah, what does he know??
I’m just saying that it’s far more relevant “who” you score your runs against rather than “where”. Seems to me that every great batsman should absolutely(ideally) dominate his home turf (opposition adjusted). I don’t see why a bloke who has the same record in all continents should be treated differently from a guy who had a skewed but ultimately the same average
-
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
I think it was @mariner4life who pointed out the discrepancy in home vs away for Warner. Being able to bat at home is one thing, dominating unfamiliar tracks against home attacks is another. For me, that's the mark of a great batsman.
Bah, what does he know??
I’m just saying that it’s far more relevant “who” you score your runs against rather than “where”. Seems to me that every great batsman should absolutely(ideally) dominate his home turf (opposition adjusted). I don’t see why a bloke who has the same record in all continents should be treated differently from a guy who had a skewed but ultimately the same average
Because tests matches are notoriously hard to win away from home. Scoring runs in foreign conditions against bowlers that know exactly how to exploit them (India, spin, Aus, pace) is much harder than plundering attacks at home on pitches you are accustomed too. Only the very best batsmen have respectable records away from home.
-
@No-Quarter said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
I think it was @mariner4life who pointed out the discrepancy in home vs away for Warner. Being able to bat at home is one thing, dominating unfamiliar tracks against home attacks is another. For me, that's the mark of a great batsman.
Bah, what does he know??
I’m just saying that it’s far more relevant “who” you score your runs against rather than “where”. Seems to me that every great batsman should absolutely(ideally) dominate his home turf (opposition adjusted). I don’t see why a bloke who has the same record in all continents should be treated differently from a guy who had a skewed but ultimately the same average
Because tests matches are notoriously hard to win away from home. Scoring runs in foreign conditions against bowlers that know exactly how to exploit them (India, spin, Aus, pace) is much harder than plundering attacks at home on pitches you are accustomed too. Only the very best batsmen have respectable records away from home.
But ( without delving too much ) even the very greatest players generally do better at home ( which is why I all of a sudden admire Sunil Gavaskar more, 50 home, 52 away as an opener )
He also didn’t have the minnows to pad the average against that guys today have.
Other Indians worth admiring are Rahul Dravid 51 vs 53. Sachin Tendulkar 52 vs 54. ( I was genuinely surprised at this )
Virat Kohli is 61 vs 41 though, not so impressive ( and he’s more style than substance compared to the other three )
Contrast that with Adam Voges and his funny old career. ( overall 61, 86 home, 49 away ) despite those numbers no one is calling him one of the greats considering he plundered a terrible Windies team at home for so many of those runs.
KW is quite rightly regarded as one of the absolute modern greats. This innings should go a way to help secure this as it’s his first double away from home ( currently 65 vs 46 )
If you’re picking an all time World XI though Paddles would be further up the list than he is.
-
@No-Quarter said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
I think it was @mariner4life who pointed out the discrepancy in home vs away for Warner. Being able to bat at home is one thing, dominating unfamiliar tracks against home attacks is another. For me, that's the mark of a great batsman.
Bah, what does he know??
I’m just saying that it’s far more relevant “who” you score your runs against rather than “where”. Seems to me that every great batsman should absolutely(ideally) dominate his home turf (opposition adjusted). I don’t see why a bloke who has the same record in all continents should be treated differently from a guy who had a skewed but ultimately the same average
Because tests matches are notoriously hard to win away from home. Scoring runs in foreign conditions against bowlers that know exactly how to exploit them (India, spin, Aus, pace) is much harder than plundering attacks at home on pitches you are accustomed too. Only the very best batsmen have respectable records away from home.
Well all that’s pretty obvious innit? My point, is that the “very best batsmen” that you speak of, that have these away records that are notably higher, why aren’t their home averages at least on par with the next tier of mere greats?
Because they can be if their overall averages are the same can they?
I don’t feel particularly strongly about this, but I would say I’d happily have all the flat track home-plundering bullies in the world in our team if they can average 46 overall
-
@No-Quarter said in NZ v Pakistan:
Because tests matches are notoriously hard to win away from home.
Tbh that's little to do with a batsman's average.
-
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
Test matches | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo
Find records of Highest career batting average in Test matches only on ESPNcricinfo.
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
-
I guess you could take the discussion to a West Indian board and argue that Warner is better than Gordon Greenidge.
They've played about the same number of tests as openers and Dave has a marginally higher average, but Gordon significantly better away from home.
-
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
Test matches | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo
Find records of Highest career batting average in Test matches only on ESPNcricinfo.
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
Sir Viv is a funny one. Obviously so highly revered for the way he could tear an attack apart…..but an average of 50 whilst brilliant is not head and shoulders above anyone else. One of my early favourites as a player, his confidence and swagger was just awesome and always in the discussions for a greatest XI of all time.
Personally I make a point for Brian Lara being the second best batsman of all time. Average of 52.88 ( excellent ), scorer of some HUGE innings…..
….but for whatever reason he got just SIX not outs in 232 innings. He didn’t pad the average like others did…..Maybe he took more risks having to play for such a comparatively weak team so often ?
Compare that to contemporaries who scored over 10,000 runs like Tendulkar ( 33 in 329 ), Ponting ( 29 in 287 ), Kallis ( 40 in 280 ) and Dravid ( 32 in 286 ) and you get the picture. He still averaged more than two of these guys.
Also Lara had that “troubled genius” demeanour about him.
He was also the most thrilling batsman I’ve ever seen.
