Cricket - best ever, trivia etc
-
@Gunner said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido a bit rough to call Jamieson unsuccessful?
He’s obviously had injury problems of late, but from memory he’s done pretty well with that bat hasn’t he?Still early days for Jamieson.
Southee has cracked some impressive 50s although probably underachieved with the bat overall ( as the fern reminds us every summer )
Bracewell has massively underachieved with the bat at the highest level. His first class numbers are good.
-
@Gunner said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido a bit rough to call Jamieson unsuccessful?
He’s obviously had injury problems of late, but from memory he’s done pretty well with that bat hasn’t he?Not for a number 8.
He has done well because he has had the extra batting responsibilty placed on him right from debut. But he's an under-perfroming number 8
But, He's elevated a position too high because we have a 'shit' tail. No bunnies, but all of them 9s or 10s.
-
@Rapido said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Gunner said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido a bit rough to call Jamieson unsuccessful?
He’s obviously had injury problems of late, but from memory he’s done pretty well with that bat hasn’t he?Not for a number 8.
He has done well because he has had the extra batting responsibilty placed on him right from debut. But he's an under-perfroming number 8
But, He's elevated a position too high because we have a 'shit' tail. No bunnies, but all of them 9s or 10s.
Is he ? Number 8 is generally an all rounder, keeper or the best of the bowlers. I suspect Jamieson is the latter.
Averaging a shade under 20, what is a good number for you ? I think that’s acceptable
-
@MN5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Gunner said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido a bit rough to call Jamieson unsuccessful?
He’s obviously had injury problems of late, but from memory he’s done pretty well with that bat hasn’t he?Not for a number 8.
He has done well because he has had the extra batting responsibilty placed on him right from debut. But he's an under-perfroming number 8
But, He's elevated a position too high because we have a 'shit' tail. No bunnies, but all of them 9s or 10s.
Is he ? Number 8 is generally an all rounder, keeper or the best of the bowlers. I suspect Jamieson is the latter.
Averaging a shade under 20, what is a good number for you ? I think that’s acceptable
20 is the magic number for me. North of 20 for my number 8. But it is fairly semantic. An 18 v 22, depending on strengths/weaknesses elsewhere through the 11, it may not matter.
Jamieson is 10th in world out of 15, in his era. As a number 8. 2/3rd better than him, 1/3rd worse. 'Under performing' or perhaps 'below average' would have been a better description.
-
@Rapido said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Gunner said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido a bit rough to call Jamieson unsuccessful?
He’s obviously had injury problems of late, but from memory he’s done pretty well with that bat hasn’t he?Not for a number 8.
He has done well because he has had the extra batting responsibilty placed on him right from debut. But he's an under-perfroming number 8
But, He's elevated a position too high because we have a 'shit' tail. No bunnies, but all of them 9s or 10s.
Is he ? Number 8 is generally an all rounder, keeper or the best of the bowlers. I suspect Jamieson is the latter.
Averaging a shade under 20, what is a good number for you ? I think that’s acceptable
20 is the magic number for me. North of 20 for my number 8. But it is fairly semantic. An 18 v 22, depending on strengths/weaknesses elsewhere through the 11, it may not matter.
Jamieson is 10th in world out of 15, in his era. As a number 8. 2/3rd better than him, 1/3rd worse. 'Under performing' or perhaps 'below average' would have been a better description.
I still argue it’s early days for him so we’ll see. I don’t want him neglecting his bowling to improve his batting especially with our other seamers on the way out. We don’t need another James Franklin.
We have been pretty spoilt with regular number 8s with guys like Paddles, Bracewell, C Cairns ( occasionally ) Vettori etc to be fair.
-
Paddles batted 7 a fair bit as well, not really a specialist batsman, but definitely very good for a bowler. Another common number 8 from the 80s was Ian Smith who was a useful dashing number 8-9 depending on the lineup.
Jamieson is probably not quite at their levels yet, but there's still time to get there.
-
he's doing considerably better than Pat Cummins who i consider a pretty handy bottom of the order bat.
-
@Chris-B said in Aussie Summer of Cricket:
I haven't paid much attention recently, but I've previously heard of Brathwaite, Roach and Alzarri Joseph in this Windies team - maybe da Silva.
If Clive Lloyd were dead he'd be turning in his grave!
……and to be honest I’m not sure he even qualifies for my aforementioned Windies 15-20 legends.
Very good batsman and a terrific captain…..
But if I’m making that list of legends then batsmen like Sobers, Richards, Lara, Headley, the three Ws ( google them ) and maybe Chanderpaul get in ahead of him.
Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson etc miss out despite all being bloody good.
In terms of bowlers you have Marshall ( I reckon the best test fast bowler of all time ) Ambrose, Garner, Holding, Roberts…plus some old timers I cant think of.
Croft, Bishop and Walsh were excellent too if below that absolute elite level ( injuries/bans etc the first two are Windies versions of Shane Bond in one sense )
They need a keeper. Dujon gets in.
This modern crop don’t compare. Roach is a very good pace bowler and I admire his guts and longevity. Holder is a terrific all rounder when he can be bothered playing.
-
@MN5 Clive would have a hard job breaking into the best ever Windies XI, but it would be hard to deny him a place in the Hall of Fame.
I think he's more legendary than Chanderpaul (I think Greenidge and Haynes are too, even though they've got lower averages - I'd have Clive a bit higher on the pantheon than either of those two as well - because he was captain of probably the greatest ever team).
I think Greenidge and Haynes play in the best ever Windies team - otherwise I think you're manufacturing an opener from the middle order.
Middle order is fucking tough to get into.
Headley, Richards, Lara, Sobers, probably Walcott as the keeper. Which omits Weekes, Worrell, Lloyd, Kanhai, Nurse, Chanderpaul and doubtless others I'm forgetting.
And then the bowlers - Gibbs, Ramadhin or Valentine if you need a spinner. Learie Constantine if you want another allrounder (probably surplus to requirements).
And a wealth of fast bowling options - including Griffith and Hall from the older days, but it's probably Marshall, Holding, Ambrose and Garner - Roberts and Walsh next off the rank.
-
@Chris-B said in Aussie Summer of Cricket:
@MN5 Clive would have a hard job breaking into the best ever Windies XI, but it would be hard to deny him a place in the Hall of Fame.
I think he's more legendary than Chanderpaul (I think Greenidge and Haynes are too, even though they've got lower averages - I'd have Clive a bit higher on the pantheon than either of those two as well - because he was captain of probably the greatest ever team).
I think Greenidge and Haynes play in the best ever Windies team - otherwise I think you're manufacturing an opener from the middle order.
Middle order is fucking tough to get into.
Headley, Richards, Lara, Sobers, probably Walcott as the keeper. Which omits Weekes, Worrell, Lloyd, Kanhai, Nurse, Chanderpaul and doubtless others I'm forgetting.
And then the bowlers - Gibbs, Ramadhin or Valentine if you need a spinner. Learie Constantine if you want another allrounder (probably surplus to requirements).
And a wealth of fast bowling options - including Griffith and Hall from the older days, but it's probably Marshall, Holding, Ambrose and Garner - Roberts and Walsh next off the rank.
So basically you’re saying my arbitrary figure of 15-20 is about right
Not sure if rotating any lot of four amazing fast bowlers makes someone a world class captain but Lloyd has the results I guess.
Also did Headley play enough to get in the team ?
I suppose Greenidge and Haynes get in for their amazing combo and the fact they are specialist openers, an area the Windies are relatively weak at compared to other departments.
-
@MN5 I've read a fair bit of commentary that Clive wasn't a fabulous captain - just that he had one good idea - but it was a fucking good one.
Somewhere there's a great quote about when he set an opposition team a steep chase and his spinners failed to bowl them out - google finds the story....
In 1976, Lloyd infamously declared the innings at 271 for six at Port of Spain, leaving India to get 403 in the final innings. Albert Padmore, Raphick Jumadeen and Imtiaz Ali could give him just two wickets in 105 overs of spin. India cruised home by six wickets. At the end of the match in the dressing room, Lloyd asked his spinners, “Gentlemen, I gave you 400 runs to bowl at and you failed to bowl out the opposition. How many runs must I give you in future to make sure that you get the wickets?” Never again would Lloyd be let down by spin. It was the start of a new paradigm: relentless pace. Michael Holding and Wayne Daniel started it by terrorising the Indian batsmen at Jamaica. The visitors as good as forfeited the match and trudged back from the ground like Napoleon’s army from Russia.
-
WI vs IND Cricket Scorecard, 4th Test at Kingston, April 21 - 25, 1976
Get cricket scorecard of 4th Test, WI vs IND, India tour of West Indies 1975/76 at Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica dated April 21 - 25, 1976.
Here's the scorecard of the "as good as forfeited" match. Bedi declared the first innings closed effectively 8 down to protect himself and Chandra.
Second innings they had five batsmen (supposedly) absent hurt (three maimed in the first innings). Mohinder Armanath apparently one of the bravest ever (and probably a compulsive hooker) made 60 with three sixes and two-thirds of the Indian runs.
-
-
@NTA Yeah - I played in the era when helmets were just starting out. Even the fast bowlers playing senior club cricket were fucking scary!
I've got a book called Letting Rip about fast bowling, that discusses this game. The book's entertaining, but a bit over the top.
Interestingly, India finished the first day at 178/1 - but, apparently overnight grass sprouted on the pitch to make it faster and more dangerous. The author claims it changed the course of cricket history.
Vishwanath got caught off the glove and broke his hand, Patel edged one into his mouth and Gaekwad got hit behind the ear (and spent 2 days in hospital).
-
@Chris-B said in Aussie Summer of Cricket:
@MN5 I've read a fair bit of commentary that Clive wasn't a fabulous captain - just that he had one good idea - but it was a fucking good one.
Somewhere there's a great quote about when he set an opposition team a steep chase and his spinners failed to bowl them out - google finds the story....
In 1976, Lloyd infamously declared the innings at 271 for six at Port of Spain, leaving India to get 403 in the final innings. Albert Padmore, Raphick Jumadeen and Imtiaz Ali could give him just two wickets in 105 overs of spin. India cruised home by six wickets. At the end of the match in the dressing room, Lloyd asked his spinners, “Gentlemen, I gave you 400 runs to bowl at and you failed to bowl out the opposition. How many runs must I give you in future to make sure that you get the wickets?” Never again would Lloyd be let down by spin. It was the start of a new paradigm: relentless pace. Michael Holding and Wayne Daniel started it by terrorising the Indian batsmen at Jamaica. The visitors as good as forfeited the match and trudged back from the ground like Napoleon’s army from Russia.
Haha, what a name for a cricketer
-
@Chris-B The irony with that story is that Jumadeen one of the failed spinners from the first test actually took 2/5 wickets required in the Indian second innings.
Holding the other 3.
Mohinder Armanath was one of my favourite batsmen of that era. Started out shit against the short stuff but through sheer bloody mindedness turned himself into one of the best players of the short stuff of his time.
His father scored India's first ever test century. A brother also played tests.
-
Mohinder Amarnath played 8 Tests against the West Indies in 1983.
In the 5 Tests in the West Indies he had scores of:
29 40
58 117
13
91 80
54 116598 runs/average 66.44
Later the same year, the West Indies returned the visit in India with six Tests. He had scores of:
0 0
1 0
(did not play)
(did not play)
0 0
(did not play) -
I always find a good stat chat interesting and to this day I don’t quite know how the test ranking system works…..
But with Henry Nicholls peaking at FIVE when he was in the team ( current ranking 40th ) I thought it would be interesting to see where our best batsmen have peaked…..
Apologies if I’ve missed anyone, I’m doing this over a coffee on a windy Waitangi Day.
KW - 1 ( in case anyone didn’t know )
Glenn Turner - 1 ( wow, genuinely surprised he did it and the next bloke down didn’t )
Martin Crowe - 4
Ross Taylor - 4 ( probably fair throughout his whole career )
Daryl Mitchell - 4 ( all those hundreds in England helped )
Henry Nicholls - 5 ( amazing )
Jeremy Coney - 6 ( I never thought he was this good, genuinely surprised )
Mark Richardson - 6
Tom Latham - 7
John Wright - 7
Tom Blundell - 7 ( wouldn’t Conway have gotten here after the start he had ? This is why I don’t get these rankings )
Andrew Jones - 9
Mark Greatbatch - 11
Chris Cairns - 11 ( also peaked at 8 as a bowler )
BJ Watling - 11
Brendon McCullum - 12
Stephen Fleming - 13 ( I thought he would have cracked the top 10 at some stage )
Craig McMillan - 14
Nathan Astle - 17
Devon Conway - 17
Ken Rutherford - 23
Richard Hadlee - 23 ( also peaked at 1 as a bowler )
Dan Vettori - 25 ( also peaked at 8 as a bowler ) -
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
