New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2
-
@Cyclops said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@Rapido 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)
Franklin and Wright don't get much, if any, reverence as an opening pair.
Unless by reverence you mean people being surprised to find out that it is NZ's most successful opening partnership.
Maybe it's a confirmation bias - the only people who have every mentioned them to me have spoken extremely highly of them (but then they're hardly going to mention them if they were just mediocre).
I just remember the first time I saw Franklin's average being surprised at how low it was given how much that partnership had been talked up.
Franklin was a very limited player (at test level). He played almost no shots. He had a very good FC record for Auckland and maybe would have improved his test record over the next few years but he was one of those who retired quite early as he found Martin Crowe as captain un-enjoyable*.
For about 2 years he played at a time when John Wright was in god mode in 1990 to 1991.
John Wright, who had spent most of his career as a very stodgy opening batsman, changed his stance in 1990 and increased his scoring rate by about 50%.
Franklin playing almost no shots and surviving about 2 hours per innings, plus John Wright in later career god mode - formed a very good partnership. One of those quirks of history.
Wright in matches involving Trevor Franklin:
(*according to K-Rud's book).
-
This scorecard is a fairly good example of 1990-91 version of John Wright.
In a match missing Martin Crowe. Wright takes control of a 4th innings run chase. Scoring 64% of the innings runs (and 67% of the opening partnership) on a pitch John Bracewell had just shown was starting to play up.
-
-
-
-
-
-
@MN5 said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
I'm gonna go Shane Bond at 11 purely cos I remember a bit of hitting every now and again
No sorry - it is a bit bogus as the guy has only been dismissed once batting at 11. Could be a tricky task to guess.
-
i have a question.
I just stats-gurued the test team because i wanted to look at the averages (Ryder?! fucking hell)
I get Mark Richardson averaging 45.38 over 38 matches at #1, Glen Turner averaging 43.51 over 24
Sutcliffe would be 2nd at #1 with 44.96 from 15
At #2 i have Latham averaging 52 from from 31, some dude named dowling 49 from 10, and then Turner 49 from 15.
Every other one i can match up. Was the criteria for opening just the two highest averages opening? or did you actually use their batting order?
-
@mariner4life said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
i have a question.
I just stats-gurued the test team because i wanted to look at the averages (Ryder?! fucking hell)
I get Mark Richardson averaging 45.38 over 38 matches at #1, Glen Turner averaging 43.51 over 24
Sutcliffe would be 2nd at #1 with 44.96 from 15
At #2 i have Latham averaging 52 from from 31, some dude named dowling 49 from 10, and then Turner 49 from 15.
Every other one i can match up. Was the criteria for opening just the two highest averages opening? or did you actually use their batting order?
The first option. Average as an opener.
-
@mariner4life said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
i have a question.
I just stats-gurued the test team because i wanted to look at the averages (Ryder?! fucking hell)
I get Mark Richardson averaging 45.38 over 38 matches at #1, Glen Turner averaging 43.51 over 24
Sutcliffe would be 2nd at #1 with 44.96 from 15
At #2 i have Latham averaging 52 from from 31, some dude named dowling 49 from 10, and then Turner 49 from 15.
Every other one i can match up. Was the criteria for opening just the two highest averages opening? or did you actually use their batting order?
Henry Nicholls incredible efforts have made me completely forget Ryder and all the what ifs of his career.
This makes me happy.
-
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@mariner4life said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
i have a question.
I just stats-gurued the test team because i wanted to look at the averages (Ryder?! fucking hell)
I get Mark Richardson averaging 45.38 over 38 matches at #1, Glen Turner averaging 43.51 over 24
Sutcliffe would be 2nd at #1 with 44.96 from 15
At #2 i have Latham averaging 52 from from 31, some dude named dowling 49 from 10, and then Turner 49 from 15.
Every other one i can match up. Was the criteria for opening just the two highest averages opening? or did you actually use their batting order?
The first option. Average as an opener.
well, that wasn't the task set us mr kiwipie. i fucking object. we didn't just treat the middle order as the middle order did we? Batting at 1 and batting at 2 is different.
-
@mariner4life said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
@mariner4life said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
i have a question.
I just stats-gurued the test team because i wanted to look at the averages (Ryder?! fucking hell)
I get Mark Richardson averaging 45.38 over 38 matches at #1, Glen Turner averaging 43.51 over 24
Sutcliffe would be 2nd at #1 with 44.96 from 15
At #2 i have Latham averaging 52 from from 31, some dude named dowling 49 from 10, and then Turner 49 from 15.
Every other one i can match up. Was the criteria for opening just the two highest averages opening? or did you actually use their batting order?
The first option. Average as an opener.
well, that wasn't the task set us mr kiwipie. i fucking object. we didn't just treat the middle order as the middle order did we? Batting at 1 and batting at 2 is different.
Errr yes it was
"except now it is for ODIs - 1-11 of the players with the highest batting average in that position - minimum 20 games in that position"
-
@Hooroo nobody likes a corrector, especially when @mariner4life is building up steam!
-
@mariner4life please continue, unfounded or not
-
@KiwiPie said in New Zealand v Bangladesh Test #2:
Next question - this will see us through to close of play
Name an NZ Test XI of the players with the highest batting average in each position in the batting order. Min requirements - 10 games in that batting position (according to what StatsGuru says).
You must name all 11. The person who gets the most players in the correct position (correct player in incorrect position does not count) wins - getting all 11 is very tough without cheating. (2 openers can be named in either order)
Go!
i heartily disagree your honour. You will note the list says
1
2
3Not
Openers
3
