Cricket - best ever, trivia etc
-
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
I'd put Fleming in the second or third XI. 7000 runs at 40 isn't great by world standards, but it's probably top 10 here.
Seriously ?
For me that would be guys like McMillan, Astle, Coney etc.
Out of our top ten test all time run scorers five average 40 or over and of these KW is over 50. So I think we’re kidding ourselves if Fleming isn’t in the conversation. Personally I’d have KW/Crowe/Rossco at 3-5, Fleming MAY get a chance at six ( not his preferred position ) but then again depending on the balance of the side that goes to Cairns, Watling or BMac ( if he’s considered as a keeper ). So Fleming probably walks into a 2nd XI and captains it too.
I don’t actually disagree with any of the criticisms on here about him and his batting but NZ hardly has the legacy of legends that other countries do.
Depends on whether the selection is just stuff them in or it's aiming for some sort of specialisation. Wouldn't pick him to open in the first or second XI since I think we have 4 better test openers (Wright, Turner, Richardson, T Latham), and he's not making number 4 ahead of Taylor or M Crowe, or 3 ahead of Williamson. Maybe he gets selected at 3 ahead A Jones, but I wouldn't. If we are also selecting number 5 and 6 from this collection rather than specialists, he probably gets into the second XI, but it would be easy to select a second XI without him because of balance, particularly of keeper and bowlers.
I hear that, but it’s not like we’re gonna pick Crowe at four then pick Astle/McMillan/Coney over Taylor because they batted there more than he did ! If a player is class he gets shoehorned in.
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
I'd put Fleming in the second or third XI. 7000 runs at 40 isn't great by world standards, but it's probably top 10 here.
Seriously ?
For me that would be guys like McMillan, Astle, Coney etc.
Out of our top ten test all time run scorers five average 40 or over and of these KW is over 50. So I think we’re kidding ourselves if Fleming isn’t in the conversation. Personally I’d have KW/Crowe/Rossco at 3-5, Fleming MAY get a chance at six ( not his preferred position ) but then again depending on the balance of the side that goes to Cairns, Watling or BMac ( if he’s considered as a keeper ). So Fleming probably walks into a 2nd XI and captains it too.
I don’t actually disagree with any of the criticisms on here about him and his batting but NZ hardly has the legacy of legends that other countries do.
Depends on whether the selection is just stuff them in or it's aiming for some sort of specialisation. Wouldn't pick him to open in the first or second XI since I think we have 4 better test openers (Wright, Turner, Richardson, T Latham), and he's not making number 4 ahead of Taylor or M Crowe, or 3 ahead of Williamson. Maybe he gets selected at 3 ahead A Jones, but I wouldn't. If we are also selecting number 5 and 6 from this collection rather than specialists, he probably gets into the second XI, but it would be easy to select a second XI without him because of balance, particularly of keeper and bowlers.
I hear that, but it’s not like we’re gonna pick Crowe at four then pick Astle/McMillan/Coney over Taylor because they batted there more than he did ! If a player is class he gets shoehorned in.
You could be an All Blacks coach with that attitude.
-
@gt12 said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
I'd put Fleming in the second or third XI. 7000 runs at 40 isn't great by world standards, but it's probably top 10 here.
Seriously ?
For me that would be guys like McMillan, Astle, Coney etc.
Out of our top ten test all time run scorers five average 40 or over and of these KW is over 50. So I think we’re kidding ourselves if Fleming isn’t in the conversation. Personally I’d have KW/Crowe/Rossco at 3-5, Fleming MAY get a chance at six ( not his preferred position ) but then again depending on the balance of the side that goes to Cairns, Watling or BMac ( if he’s considered as a keeper ). So Fleming probably walks into a 2nd XI and captains it too.
I don’t actually disagree with any of the criticisms on here about him and his batting but NZ hardly has the legacy of legends that other countries do.
Depends on whether the selection is just stuff them in or it's aiming for some sort of specialisation. Wouldn't pick him to open in the first or second XI since I think we have 4 better test openers (Wright, Turner, Richardson, T Latham), and he's not making number 4 ahead of Taylor or M Crowe, or 3 ahead of Williamson. Maybe he gets selected at 3 ahead A Jones, but I wouldn't. If we are also selecting number 5 and 6 from this collection rather than specialists, he probably gets into the second XI, but it would be easy to select a second XI without him because of balance, particularly of keeper and bowlers.
I hear that, but it’s not like we’re gonna pick Crowe at four then pick Astle/McMillan/Coney over Taylor because they batted there more than he did ! If a player is class he gets shoehorned in.
You could be an All Blacks coach with that attitude.
Leave the Barrett selection debacle out of this
@Godder Fleming basically was an opener for about half his career. The amount of times he found himself out there in the first over or two was staggering
-
-
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 and an ODI opener as well, but I still wouldn't pick him over the 4 named earlier.
No neither, just making a point about how shithouse some of the guys whose job it was to take the shine off the new ball actually were.
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 and an ODI opener as well, but I still wouldn't pick him over the 4 named earlier.
No neither, just making a point about how shithouse some of the guys whose job it was to take the shine off the new ball actually were.
True that, we struggled for a long time after Wright retired.
-
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
Maybe he gets selected at 3 ahead A Jones,
with a lower average and a lower century strike rate? no chance.
-
@mariner4life said in Modern batting averages:
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
Maybe he gets selected at 3 ahead A Jones,
with a lower average and a lower century strike rate? no chance.
He did only score two less which looks pretty bad for Fleming I agree, they're called averages for a reason though and Fleming did the biz in teams that were worse for almost three times as long in terms of test played. Jones record isn't that much more compelling to make him an automatic choice over the rexona man.
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@mariner4life said in Modern batting averages:
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
Maybe he gets selected at 3 ahead A Jones,
with a lower average and a lower century strike rate? no chance.
He did only score two less which looks pretty bad for Fleming I agree, they're called averages for a reason though and Fleming did the biz in teams that were worse for almost three times as long in terms of test played. .
Are you Flem's mum? you are running a pretty decent defense here.
111 tests. 9 centuries. From the top order.
Jones averaged 4 more runs playing at time when averages were significantly less.
-
@mariner4life said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@mariner4life said in Modern batting averages:
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
Maybe he gets selected at 3 ahead A Jones,
with a lower average and a lower century strike rate? no chance.
He did only score two less which looks pretty bad for Fleming I agree, they're called averages for a reason though and Fleming did the biz in teams that were worse for almost three times as long in terms of test played. .
Are you Flem's mum? you are running a pretty decent defense here.
111 tests. 9 centuries. From the top order.
Jones averaged 4 more runs playing at time when averages were significantly less.
Nope just stating facts. Yep Jones did better in the time he had, I'm not denying that but Flemings decent record over a much longer time period means he's worth a mention. It's not as cut and dried as you seem to think. Fleming was also a brilliant captain which Jones never was and I was a big fan of Andrew Howard back in the day, especially cos he came from Wellington.
Hundreds are great n all but often lower scores are just as useful in low scoring games. Fleming got more than his share of 70-90 type innings which helped the team immensely.
What goes against Jones is the fact he only played 39 tests, that's the bugger about being a relatively late starter.
-
@MN5 I'm not having that. You are the skipper, your job is to get the runs. Maybe we would have been better if our so called best bat could go on with the job? Allowing our bitsa middle orders to contribute around him.
-
@mariner4life said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 I'm not having that. You are the skipper, your job is to get the runs. Maybe we would have been better if our so called best bat could go on with the job? Allowing our bitsa middle orders to contribute around him.
Both of them had some pretty shithouse support at times, it is New Zealand we're talking about.
To sum up, yes Fleming looked lazy, yes his conversion rate was shit, yes he was frustrating.......but over 7000 runs at over 40 ( just ) is a pretty decent record, ESPECIALLY by our standards.
But yeah, neither make my all time XI at any rate. .
-
Something that makes this tough is deciding whether to have 5 or 6 specialist batsmen. Acknowledging that he's not opening, Fleming is competing for 6-8 spots. The first 3 are almost certainly Williamson, M Crowe and Taylor. Kane and M Crowe can both bowl so the first XI might get by with 4 bowlers. The second XI would struggle to find adequate bowlers in the top order and have to select 5 bowlers.
An interesting thought - who bats 6? Just keep wedging in the best batsmen, or should it be a specialist middle order batsman?
-
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
Something that makes this tough is deciding whether to have 5 or 6 specialist batsmen. Acknowledging that he's not opening, Fleming is competing for 6-8 spots. The first 3 are almost certainly Williamson, M Crowe and Taylor. Kane and M Crowe can both bowl so the first XI might get by with 4 bowlers. The second XI would struggle to find adequate bowlers in the top order and have to select 5 bowlers.
An interesting thought - who bats 6? Just keep wedging in the best batsmen, or should it be a specialist middle order batsman?
Cairns and either Watling or McCullum bat 6/7 I reckon.
-
So where do you draw the line in terms of a qualification period?
The issue for me has always been what to do with the likes of Dempster, Donelly and Cowie.
Yeah they only played a handful of tests but contemporary reports make it sound like they were a class above most NZ players.
I have no issue with Kane, Crowe, Taylor for the first XI but I'm probably going the old timers for the 2nd team because basically they don't have that much competition.
-
@dogmeat said in Modern batting averages:
So where do you draw the line in terms of a qualification period?
The issue for me has always been what to do with the likes of Dempster, Donelly and Cowie.
Yeah they only played a handful of tests but contemporary reports make it sound like they were a class above most NZ players.
I have no issue with Kane, Crowe, Taylor for the first XI but I'm probably going the old timers for the 2nd team because basically they don't have that much competition.
Same issue with Shane Bond. Definitely a class above any of our other bowlers except Hadlee but so frustrating in his injuries/unavailability
-
It's a testament to Sir Paddles that he's probably the only NZ test player whose place is 100% assured in this type of exercise. Every other player could potentially be the subject of reasonable debate (to some extent at least), but not him.
I personally wouldn't spend very long on the batsmen at 3-5, but people could if they really wanted to.
Hadlee-love aside, who bats 6 in the all time XI? That seems to be the tough question to answer - if a specialist batsman (rather than an allrounder), is it just the best non-opener not selected yet, or a specialist middle order batsman (i.e. mostly played at 5 or 6)?
-
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
It's a testament to Sir Paddles that he's probably the only NZ test player whose place is 100% assured in this type of exercise. Every other player could potentially be the subject of reasonable debate (to some extent at least), but not him.
I personally wouldn't spend very long on the batsmen at 3-5, but people could if they really wanted to.
Hadlee-love aside, who bats 6 in the all time XI? That seems to be the tough question to answer - if a specialist batsman (rather than an allrounder), is it just the best non-opener not selected yet, or a specialist middle order batsman (i.e. mostly played at 5 or 6)?
Paddles walks in but so do ( in batting order ) Turner, KW, Crowe, Taylor and Vettori. For keepers you have to go McCullum or Watling.....one of these two probably bats six to answer your question with Cairns ( who I admit doesn’t walk in but he’s a probable ) at seven.
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
It's a testament to Sir Paddles that he's probably the only NZ test player whose place is 100% assured in this type of exercise. Every other player could potentially be the subject of reasonable debate (to some extent at least), but not him.
I personally wouldn't spend very long on the batsmen at 3-5, but people could if they really wanted to.
Hadlee-love aside, who bats 6 in the all time XI? That seems to be the tough question to answer - if a specialist batsman (rather than an allrounder), is it just the best non-opener not selected yet, or a specialist middle order batsman (i.e. mostly played at 5 or 6)?
Paddles walks in but so do ( in batting order ) Turner, KW, Crowe, Taylor and Vettori. For keepers you have to go McCullum or Watling.....one of these two probably bats six to answer your question with Cairns ( who I admit doesn’t walk in but he’s a probable ) at seven.
Do we have any better batsmen for 6 than McCullum (McCullum's record is better than Watling's)?
-
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
It's a testament to Sir Paddles that he's probably the only NZ test player whose place is 100% assured in this type of exercise. Every other player could potentially be the subject of reasonable debate (to some extent at least), but not him.
I personally wouldn't spend very long on the batsmen at 3-5, but people could if they really wanted to.
Hadlee-love aside, who bats 6 in the all time XI? That seems to be the tough question to answer - if a specialist batsman (rather than an allrounder), is it just the best non-opener not selected yet, or a specialist middle order batsman (i.e. mostly played at 5 or 6)?
Paddles walks in but so do ( in batting order ) Turner, KW, Crowe, Taylor and Vettori. For keepers you have to go McCullum or Watling.....one of these two probably bats six to answer your question with Cairns ( who I admit doesn’t walk in but he’s a probable ) at seven.
Do we have any better batsmen for 6 than McCullum (McCullum's record is better than Watling's)?
The average is about the same but it comes down to what the team needs, a dasher like McCullum or a grafter like Watling ? Much of McCullums big scores came after he hung up the gloves.
I have fond memories of Smithy but he doesn’t enter the equation cos of his extremely hit or miss batting efforts ( granted his batting record was pretty typical of his era )
