Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka
-
@Higgins You and Frank Greenall are exactly right.
Especially about the therapeutic value of test cricket as played by Geoffrey.
Every time I tune into Radiosport these days I seem to be listening to two fools talking on the margins of sport of which they seem to understand very little.
Except the Driven Hour - when they have expert guests who are evidently paying careful attention to what's going on in the world.
But I don't much like motor-racing.
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 @Hooroo Different jobs - different eras.
Kane will probably play more than twice the number of test Sir Paddles did - but, a lot less first class cricket.
Received wisdom seems that Kane has already gone past Marty Crowe - but, Marty scored 71 first class centuries - where Kane has just 29 - and that has to be factored into the career equation where the old guys played a lot of non-international first class cricket compared to the guys today.
Sir Paddles has more than 100 first class five-wicket bags.
And Glen Turner did the batting equivalent with centuries......but I think that's only part of the equation when you consider ordinary test batsmen like Graeme Hick, Mark Ramprakash and Mike Gatting did exactly the same.
Other side of the equation is that someone like Len Hutton made 19 test centuries and these days pretty much anyone with a decent amount of talent who plays for more than a decade is going to be disappointed if they don't get there.
Tom Latham will be disappointed if he doesn't get there.
Andrew Strauss, Ian Bell, Graeme Smith - all got more than twenty test centuries - but, not guys I think are all-time Greats of the game.
Is there a bit of a hint it's starting to come back the other way though? I had a feeling that averages and hundreds scored were starting to come back.
A quick blat on statguru shows me that over the past 2 years, for guys that played at least 10 tests over the time, 7 averaged over 50, while 14 averaged 40-49. 3 guys averaged 60+. The guys averaging 50+ scored 35 hundreds
The 2 years prior to that, the numbers were 15 at 50+, and 9 in the 40-49 bracket. 6 guys averaged 60+, and the guys averaging 50+ scored 74 hundreds.
Looks like about the same number of guys score 40+, but the numbers getting significantly higher averages has dropped right back. Now this isn't taking a lot of variables in to play, so it's a very simplistic metric to use, but perhaps we are starting to see a bit of equalisation creep back in to the game?
By the way, in the "last 2 years" figures above, the guys above 60 are Smith, Kohli and Kane. Who comes in next? Fucking Henry Nicholls.
-
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 @Hooroo Different jobs - different eras.
Kane will probably play more than twice the number of test Sir Paddles did - but, a lot less first class cricket.
Received wisdom seems that Kane has already gone past Marty Crowe - but, Marty scored 71 first class centuries - where Kane has just 29 - and that has to be factored into the career equation where the old guys played a lot of non-international first class cricket compared to the guys today.
Sir Paddles has more than 100 first class five-wicket bags.
And Glen Turner did the batting equivalent with centuries......but I think that's only part of the equation when you consider ordinary test batsmen like Graeme Hick, Mark Ramprakash and Mike Gatting did exactly the same.
Other side of the equation is that someone like Len Hutton made 19 test centuries and these days pretty much anyone with a decent amount of talent who plays for more than a decade is going to be disappointed if they don't get there.
Tom Latham will be disappointed if he doesn't get there.
Andrew Strauss, Ian Bell, Graeme Smith - all got more than twenty test centuries - but, not guys I think are all-time Greats of the game.
Is there a bit of a hint it's starting to come back the other way though? I had a feeling that averages and hundreds scored were starting to come back.
A quick blat on statguru shows me that over the past 2 years, for guys that played at least 10 tests over the time, 7 averaged over 50, while 14 averaged 40-49. 3 guys averaged 60+. The guys averaging 50+ scored 35 hundreds
The 2 years prior to that, the numbers were 15 at 50+, and 9 in the 40-49 bracket. 6 guys averaged 60+, and the guys averaging 50+ scored 74 hundreds.
Looks like about the same number of guys score 40+, but the numbers getting significantly higher averages has dropped right back. Now this isn't taking a lot of variables in to play, so it's a very simplistic metric to use, but perhaps we are starting to see a bit of equalisation creep back in to the game?
By the way, in the "last 2 years" figures above, the guys above 60 are Smith, Kohli and Kane. Who comes in next? Fucking Henry Nicholls.
I think it's ebbing towards the bowlers again. Smith aside the ridiculous averages are dipping a bit.
-
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 @Hooroo Different jobs - different eras.
Kane will probably play more than twice the number of test Sir Paddles did - but, a lot less first class cricket.
Received wisdom seems that Kane has already gone past Marty Crowe - but, Marty scored 71 first class centuries - where Kane has just 29 - and that has to be factored into the career equation where the old guys played a lot of non-international first class cricket compared to the guys today.
Sir Paddles has more than 100 first class five-wicket bags.
And Glen Turner did the batting equivalent with centuries......but I think that's only part of the equation when you consider ordinary test batsmen like Graeme Hick, Mark Ramprakash and Mike Gatting did exactly the same.
Other side of the equation is that someone like Len Hutton made 19 test centuries and these days pretty much anyone with a decent amount of talent who plays for more than a decade is going to be disappointed if they don't get there.
Tom Latham will be disappointed if he doesn't get there.
Andrew Strauss, Ian Bell, Graeme Smith - all got more than twenty test centuries - but, not guys I think are all-time Greats of the game.
Is there a bit of a hint it's starting to come back the other way though? I had a feeling that averages and hundreds scored were starting to come back.
A quick blat on statguru shows me that over the past 2 years, for guys that played at least 10 tests over the time, 7 averaged over 50, while 14 averaged 40-49. 3 guys averaged 60+. The guys averaging 50+ scored 35 hundreds
The 2 years prior to that, the numbers were 15 at 50+, and 9 in the 40-49 bracket. 6 guys averaged 60+, and the guys averaging 50+ scored 74 hundreds.
Looks like about the same number of guys score 40+, but the numbers getting significantly higher averages has dropped right back. Now this isn't taking a lot of variables in to play, so it's a very simplistic metric to use, but perhaps we are starting to see a bit of equalisation creep back in to the game?
By the way, in the "last 2 years" figures above, the guys above 60 are Smith, Kohli and Kane. Who comes in next? Fucking Henry Nicholls.
I think it's ebbing towards the bowlers again. Smith aside the ridiculous averages are dipping a bit.
there are a lot of very good attacks around at the moment.
-
Our keeper looks as coordinated as a third grader.
-
-
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 @Hooroo Different jobs - different eras.
Kane will probably play more than twice the number of test Sir Paddles did - but, a lot less first class cricket.
Received wisdom seems that Kane has already gone past Marty Crowe - but, Marty scored 71 first class centuries - where Kane has just 29 - and that has to be factored into the career equation where the old guys played a lot of non-international first class cricket compared to the guys today.
Sir Paddles has more than 100 first class five-wicket bags.
And Glen Turner did the batting equivalent with centuries......but I think that's only part of the equation when you consider ordinary test batsmen like Graeme Hick, Mark Ramprakash and Mike Gatting did exactly the same.
Other side of the equation is that someone like Len Hutton made 19 test centuries and these days pretty much anyone with a decent amount of talent who plays for more than a decade is going to be disappointed if they don't get there.
Tom Latham will be disappointed if he doesn't get there.
Andrew Strauss, Ian Bell, Graeme Smith - all got more than twenty test centuries - but, not guys I think are all-time Greats of the game.
Is there a bit of a hint it's starting to come back the other way though? I had a feeling that averages and hundreds scored were starting to come back.
A quick blat on statguru shows me that over the past 2 years, for guys that played at least 10 tests over the time, 7 averaged over 50, while 14 averaged 40-49. 3 guys averaged 60+. The guys averaging 50+ scored 35 hundreds
The 2 years prior to that, the numbers were 15 at 50+, and 9 in the 40-49 bracket. 6 guys averaged 60+, and the guys averaging 50+ scored 74 hundreds.
Looks like about the same number of guys score 40+, but the numbers getting significantly higher averages has dropped right back. Now this isn't taking a lot of variables in to play, so it's a very simplistic metric to use, but perhaps we are starting to see a bit of equalisation creep back in to the game?
By the way, in the "last 2 years" figures above, the guys above 60 are Smith, Kohli and Kane. Who comes in next? Fucking Henry Nicholls.
I think it's ebbing towards the bowlers again. Smith aside the ridiculous averages are dipping a bit.
there are a lot of very good attacks around at the moment.
Hence anyone averaging 40+ in the 80s being a fucken good player.
-
Jimmy is having a pretty good game..
-
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 @Hooroo Different jobs - different eras.
Kane will probably play more than twice the number of test Sir Paddles did - but, a lot less first class cricket.
Received wisdom seems that Kane has already gone past Marty Crowe - but, Marty scored 71 first class centuries - where Kane has just 29 - and that has to be factored into the career equation where the old guys played a lot of non-international first class cricket compared to the guys today.
Sir Paddles has more than 100 first class five-wicket bags.
And Glen Turner did the batting equivalent with centuries......but I think that's only part of the equation when you consider ordinary test batsmen like Graeme Hick, Mark Ramprakash and Mike Gatting did exactly the same.
Other side of the equation is that someone like Len Hutton made 19 test centuries and these days pretty much anyone with a decent amount of talent who plays for more than a decade is going to be disappointed if they don't get there.
Tom Latham will be disappointed if he doesn't get there.
Andrew Strauss, Ian Bell, Graeme Smith - all got more than twenty test centuries - but, not guys I think are all-time Greats of the game.
Is there a bit of a hint it's starting to come back the other way though? I had a feeling that averages and hundreds scored were starting to come back.
A quick blat on statguru shows me that over the past 2 years, for guys that played at least 10 tests over the time, 7 averaged over 50, while 14 averaged 40-49. 3 guys averaged 60+. The guys averaging 50+ scored 35 hundreds
The 2 years prior to that, the numbers were 15 at 50+, and 9 in the 40-49 bracket. 6 guys averaged 60+, and the guys averaging 50+ scored 74 hundreds.
Looks like about the same number of guys score 40+, but the numbers getting significantly higher averages has dropped right back. Now this isn't taking a lot of variables in to play, so it's a very simplistic metric to use, but perhaps we are starting to see a bit of equalisation creep back in to the game?
By the way, in the "last 2 years" figures above, the guys above 60 are Smith, Kohli and Kane. Who comes in next? Fucking Henry Nicholls.
I think it's ebbing towards the bowlers again. Smith aside the ridiculous averages are dipping a bit.
there are a lot of very good attacks around at the moment.
Hence anyone averaging 40+ in the 80s being a fucken good player.
why?
-
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 @Hooroo Different jobs - different eras.
Kane will probably play more than twice the number of test Sir Paddles did - but, a lot less first class cricket.
Received wisdom seems that Kane has already gone past Marty Crowe - but, Marty scored 71 first class centuries - where Kane has just 29 - and that has to be factored into the career equation where the old guys played a lot of non-international first class cricket compared to the guys today.
Sir Paddles has more than 100 first class five-wicket bags.
And Glen Turner did the batting equivalent with centuries......but I think that's only part of the equation when you consider ordinary test batsmen like Graeme Hick, Mark Ramprakash and Mike Gatting did exactly the same.
Other side of the equation is that someone like Len Hutton made 19 test centuries and these days pretty much anyone with a decent amount of talent who plays for more than a decade is going to be disappointed if they don't get there.
Tom Latham will be disappointed if he doesn't get there.
Andrew Strauss, Ian Bell, Graeme Smith - all got more than twenty test centuries - but, not guys I think are all-time Greats of the game.
Is there a bit of a hint it's starting to come back the other way though? I had a feeling that averages and hundreds scored were starting to come back.
A quick blat on statguru shows me that over the past 2 years, for guys that played at least 10 tests over the time, 7 averaged over 50, while 14 averaged 40-49. 3 guys averaged 60+. The guys averaging 50+ scored 35 hundreds
The 2 years prior to that, the numbers were 15 at 50+, and 9 in the 40-49 bracket. 6 guys averaged 60+, and the guys averaging 50+ scored 74 hundreds.
Looks like about the same number of guys score 40+, but the numbers getting significantly higher averages has dropped right back. Now this isn't taking a lot of variables in to play, so it's a very simplistic metric to use, but perhaps we are starting to see a bit of equalisation creep back in to the game?
By the way, in the "last 2 years" figures above, the guys above 60 are Smith, Kohli and Kane. Who comes in next? Fucking Henry Nicholls.
I think it's ebbing towards the bowlers again. Smith aside the ridiculous averages are dipping a bit.
there are a lot of very good attacks around at the moment.
Hence anyone averaging 40+ in the 80s being a fucken good player.
why?
Cos of the ridiculous number of amazing fast bowlers going round.
-
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@mariner4life said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - NZ vs Sri Lanka:
@MN5 @Hooroo Different jobs - different eras.
Kane will probably play more than twice the number of test Sir Paddles did - but, a lot less first class cricket.
Received wisdom seems that Kane has already gone past Marty Crowe - but, Marty scored 71 first class centuries - where Kane has just 29 - and that has to be factored into the career equation where the old guys played a lot of non-international first class cricket compared to the guys today.
Sir Paddles has more than 100 first class five-wicket bags.
And Glen Turner did the batting equivalent with centuries......but I think that's only part of the equation when you consider ordinary test batsmen like Graeme Hick, Mark Ramprakash and Mike Gatting did exactly the same.
Other side of the equation is that someone like Len Hutton made 19 test centuries and these days pretty much anyone with a decent amount of talent who plays for more than a decade is going to be disappointed if they don't get there.
Tom Latham will be disappointed if he doesn't get there.
Andrew Strauss, Ian Bell, Graeme Smith - all got more than twenty test centuries - but, not guys I think are all-time Greats of the game.
Is there a bit of a hint it's starting to come back the other way though? I had a feeling that averages and hundreds scored were starting to come back.
A quick blat on statguru shows me that over the past 2 years, for guys that played at least 10 tests over the time, 7 averaged over 50, while 14 averaged 40-49. 3 guys averaged 60+. The guys averaging 50+ scored 35 hundreds
The 2 years prior to that, the numbers were 15 at 50+, and 9 in the 40-49 bracket. 6 guys averaged 60+, and the guys averaging 50+ scored 74 hundreds.
Looks like about the same number of guys score 40+, but the numbers getting significantly higher averages has dropped right back. Now this isn't taking a lot of variables in to play, so it's a very simplistic metric to use, but perhaps we are starting to see a bit of equalisation creep back in to the game?
By the way, in the "last 2 years" figures above, the guys above 60 are Smith, Kohli and Kane. Who comes in next? Fucking Henry Nicholls.
I think it's ebbing towards the bowlers again. Smith aside the ridiculous averages are dipping a bit.
there are a lot of very good attacks around at the moment.
Hence anyone averaging 40+ in the 80s being a fucken good player.
why?
Cos of the ridiculous number of amazing fast bowlers going round.
It's debatable the attacks then are any better than now. Yes there was the windies, but behind that? Individuals and all rounders. Go have a look at the top wicket takers of the 80s. Look how many are backed up by someone else really good.
Geoff Lawson is the highest Australian wicket taker of the 80s.
-
