Cricket - best ever, trivia etc
-
@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 )
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@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.
Cairnsie simply isn't good enough to bat at 6. He wasn't really good enough to bat at 6 in the teams he played in.
His overall average is 33.5, but when he batted at 6 (in 25 test innings) he only averaged 25.
If he is to make the team, then a wicket keeper has to bat at 6 and then potentially he bats at 7 and can make the grade as the 4th seamer.
But, if we play a specialist batsman at 6, then a keeper bats 7 and no way can Cairnsie make it as one of just three seamers.
-
@Chris-B said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@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.
Cairnsie simply isn't good enough to bat at 6. He wasn't really good enough to bat at 6 in the teams he played in.
His overall average is 33.5, but when he batted at 6 (in 25 test innings) he only averaged 25.
If he is to make the team, then a wicket keeper has to bat at 6 and then potentially he bats at 7 and can make the grade as the 4th seamer.
But, if we play a specialist batsman at 6, then a keeper bats 7 and no way can Cairnsie make it as one of just three seamers.
Fair call, he bats at seven for me and makes it as a 4th seamer. As I’ve said, not good enough in this discipline alone but 13 Michelles with 5 tons thrown in there in 62 tests is a pretty handy all round return. Vettori at eight and Paddles at nine makes it a pretty strong batting unit.
-
-
-
@Cyclops said in Modern batting averages:
I think Cairns suffered a bit because of the teams he played in. If you compare him to Colin de Grandhomme who looks like a test cricketer playing in the current team, how much better do you think Cairns would be in that role?
Same with Vettori who is Warne/Murali compared to the spinners we’ve had recently
-
@MN5 Applying my same standard to the keepers - i.e. that they have to have performed batting at No. 6, Watling wins easily over BMac.
BJ is actually significantly better than his career average when he bats 6 - 46.8 vs 38.5.
BMac is like Cairnsie and falls away significantly - 28.7 vs 38.6.
Haven't checked but I'd guess BJ has a markedly better average than BMac when playing as a keeper.
-
I'm late to this thread - very late.
If you look at Kane's test batting average since the start of 2014 it is
63.24 across 52 games with 18 centuries.
You could that it was only NZ's lack of depth that had him into the test team before he was really ready that stops him competing directly with Steve Smith. Having said that, Smith also started in 2010 and his test average since the start of 2014 is 71.91! (57 games, 24 tons).
-
@KiwiPie said in Modern batting averages:
I'm late to this thread - very late.
If you look at Kane's test batting average since the start of 2014 it is
63.24 across 52 games with 18 centuries.
You could that it was only NZ's lack of depth that had him into the test team before he was really ready that stops him competing directly with Steve Smith. Having said that, Smith also started in 2010 and his test average since the start of 2014 is 71.91! (57 games, 24 tons).
It, unfortunately, has always been like that for little ol' NZ.
Martin Crowe admitted he was thrust in too early, still learning first-class cricket.
There is a quote I remember from Adam Parore where he said he learned to play first-class cricket by playing Test cricket.
