Cricket - best ever, trivia etc
-
I guess you could take the discussion to a West Indian board and argue that Warner is better than Gordon Greenidge.
They've played about the same number of tests as openers and Dave has a marginally higher average, but Gordon significantly better away from home.
-
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
Test matches | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo
Find records of Highest career batting average in Test matches only on ESPNcricinfo.
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
Sir Viv is a funny one. Obviously so highly revered for the way he could tear an attack apart…..but an average of 50 whilst brilliant is not head and shoulders above anyone else. One of my early favourites as a player, his confidence and swagger was just awesome and always in the discussions for a greatest XI of all time.
Personally I make a point for Brian Lara being the second best batsman of all time. Average of 52.88 ( excellent ), scorer of some HUGE innings…..
….but for whatever reason he got just SIX not outs in 232 innings. He didn’t pad the average like others did…..Maybe he took more risks having to play for such a comparatively weak team so often ?
Compare that to contemporaries who scored over 10,000 runs like Tendulkar ( 33 in 329 ), Ponting ( 29 in 287 ), Kallis ( 40 in 280 ) and Dravid ( 32 in 286 ) and you get the picture. He still averaged more than two of these guys.
Also Lara had that “troubled genius” demeanour about him.
He was also the most thrilling batsman I’ve ever seen.
-
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
Test matches | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo
Find records of Highest career batting average in Test matches only on ESPNcricinfo.
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
Sir Viv is a funny one. Obviously so highly revered for the way he could tear an attack apart…..but an average of 50 whilst brilliant is not head and shoulders above anyone else. One of my early favourites as a player, his confidence and swagger was just awesome and always in the discussions for a greatest XI of all time.
Personally I make a point for Brian Lara being the second best batsman of all time. Average of 52.88 ( excellent ), scorer of some HUGE innings…..
….but for whatever reason he got just SIX not outs in 232 innings. He didn’t pad the average like others did…..Maybe he took more risks having to play for such a comparatively weak team so often ?
Compare that to contemporaries who scored over 10,000 runs like Tendulkar ( 33 in 329 ), Ponting ( 29 in 287 ), Kallis ( 40 in 280 ) and Dravid ( 32 in 286 ) and you get the picture. He still averaged more than two of these guys.
Also Lara had that “troubled genius” demeanour about him.
He was also the most thrilling batsman I’ve ever seen.
I do not think you can discount Alan Border in discussing Greats, he carried Australian Cricket on his back for quite a while he brought them out of a bad patch of form,and was one tough batsmen.
He would come out and to fire him self up would stare at the nearest fieldsman and give him the What the Fuck are you looking at,And the battle started.He had not much around him at times but as a lot of World class bowlers have said a tough fluffybunny to bowl to.
,maybe not n.1 or 2 but right up there for what he contributed to Australian Cricket.
Test 156 265 inng 44no's 11174 Runs HS205 AV.50.56 27 Cent 63 50's -
@Chris said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
Test matches | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo
Find records of Highest career batting average in Test matches only on ESPNcricinfo.
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
Sir Viv is a funny one. Obviously so highly revered for the way he could tear an attack apart…..but an average of 50 whilst brilliant is not head and shoulders above anyone else. One of my early favourites as a player, his confidence and swagger was just awesome and always in the discussions for a greatest XI of all time.
Personally I make a point for Brian Lara being the second best batsman of all time. Average of 52.88 ( excellent ), scorer of some HUGE innings…..
….but for whatever reason he got just SIX not outs in 232 innings. He didn’t pad the average like others did…..Maybe he took more risks having to play for such a comparatively weak team so often ?
Compare that to contemporaries who scored over 10,000 runs like Tendulkar ( 33 in 329 ), Ponting ( 29 in 287 ), Kallis ( 40 in 280 ) and Dravid ( 32 in 286 ) and you get the picture. He still averaged more than two of these guys.
Also Lara had that “troubled genius” demeanour about him.
He was also the most thrilling batsman I’ve ever seen.
I do not think you can discount Alan Border in discussing Greats, he carried Australian Cricket on his back for quite a while he brought them out of a bad patch of form,and was one tough batsmen.
He would come out and to fire him self up would stare at the nearest fieldsman and give him the What the Fuck are you looking at,And the battle started.He had not much around him at times but as a lot of World class bowlers have said a tough fluffybunny to bowl to.
,maybe not n.1 or 2 but right up there for what he contributed to Australian Cricket.
Test 156 265 inng 44no's 11174 Runs HS205 AV.50.56 27 Cent 63 50'sOh definitely not. Border is a legend. Similar to Steve Waugh and I’d also suggest Shivnarine Chanderpaul was similar too.
Here’s the thing though. I can’t find room for Border AND Waugh in my all time Australian XI assuming Keith Miller and Adam Gilchrist make it. I think there’s only room for ONE plucky, never give the wicket away grafter like those two, not both.
A VERY tough decision.
-
@MN5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Chris said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
Test matches | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo
Find records of Highest career batting average in Test matches only on ESPNcricinfo.
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
Sir Viv is a funny one. Obviously so highly revered for the way he could tear an attack apart…..but an average of 50 whilst brilliant is not head and shoulders above anyone else. One of my early favourites as a player, his confidence and swagger was just awesome and always in the discussions for a greatest XI of all time.
Personally I make a point for Brian Lara being the second best batsman of all time. Average of 52.88 ( excellent ), scorer of some HUGE innings…..
….but for whatever reason he got just SIX not outs in 232 innings. He didn’t pad the average like others did…..Maybe he took more risks having to play for such a comparatively weak team so often ?
Compare that to contemporaries who scored over 10,000 runs like Tendulkar ( 33 in 329 ), Ponting ( 29 in 287 ), Kallis ( 40 in 280 ) and Dravid ( 32 in 286 ) and you get the picture. He still averaged more than two of these guys.
Also Lara had that “troubled genius” demeanour about him.
He was also the most thrilling batsman I’ve ever seen.
I do not think you can discount Alan Border in discussing Greats, he carried Australian Cricket on his back for quite a while he brought them out of a bad patch of form,and was one tough batsmen.
He would come out and to fire him self up would stare at the nearest fieldsman and give him the What the Fuck are you looking at,And the battle started.He had not much around him at times but as a lot of World class bowlers have said a tough fluffybunny to bowl to.
,maybe not n.1 or 2 but right up there for what he contributed to Australian Cricket.
Test 156 265 inng 44no's 11174 Runs HS205 AV.50.56 27 Cent 63 50'sOh definitely not. Border is a legend. Similar to Steve Waugh and I’d also suggest Shivnarine Chanderpaul was similar too.
Here’s the thing though. I can’t find room for Border AND Waugh in my all time Australian XI assuming Keith Miller and Adam Gilchrist make it. I think there’s only room for ONE plucky, never give the wicket away grafter like those two, not both.
A VERY tough decision.
That is a tough one I would pick either to bat for my Life.
-
@MN5 I think Sir Viv's country cricket attitude probably slipped into test cricket a bit in the second part of his career, where he couldn't be fucked some of the time - plus he went on too long.
After 44 tests he was averaging 62, that's probably what you assess him at his peak on.
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 I think Sir Viv's country cricket attitude probably slipped into test cricket a bit in the second part of his career, where he couldn't be fucked some of the time - plus he went on too long.
After 44 tests he was averaging 62, that's probably what you assess him at his peak on.
Similar to Botham ( best mates )
His stats don’t really do justice to how amazing he was when he was at his peak.
Botham in the first half of his career averaged 23 with the ball and 38 with the bat.
-
@Chris said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Chris said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
Test matches | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo
Find records of Highest career batting average in Test matches only on ESPNcricinfo.
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
Sir Viv is a funny one. Obviously so highly revered for the way he could tear an attack apart…..but an average of 50 whilst brilliant is not head and shoulders above anyone else. One of my early favourites as a player, his confidence and swagger was just awesome and always in the discussions for a greatest XI of all time.
Personally I make a point for Brian Lara being the second best batsman of all time. Average of 52.88 ( excellent ), scorer of some HUGE innings…..
….but for whatever reason he got just SIX not outs in 232 innings. He didn’t pad the average like others did…..Maybe he took more risks having to play for such a comparatively weak team so often ?
Compare that to contemporaries who scored over 10,000 runs like Tendulkar ( 33 in 329 ), Ponting ( 29 in 287 ), Kallis ( 40 in 280 ) and Dravid ( 32 in 286 ) and you get the picture. He still averaged more than two of these guys.
Also Lara had that “troubled genius” demeanour about him.
He was also the most thrilling batsman I’ve ever seen.
I do not think you can discount Alan Border in discussing Greats, he carried Australian Cricket on his back for quite a while he brought them out of a bad patch of form,and was one tough batsmen.
He would come out and to fire him self up would stare at the nearest fieldsman and give him the What the Fuck are you looking at,And the battle started.He had not much around him at times but as a lot of World class bowlers have said a tough fluffybunny to bowl to.
,maybe not n.1 or 2 but right up there for what he contributed to Australian Cricket.
Test 156 265 inng 44no's 11174 Runs HS205 AV.50.56 27 Cent 63 50'sOh definitely not. Border is a legend. Similar to Steve Waugh and I’d also suggest Shivnarine Chanderpaul was similar too.
Here’s the thing though. I can’t find room for Border AND Waugh in my all time Australian XI assuming Keith Miller and Adam Gilchrist make it. I think there’s only room for ONE plucky, never give the wicket away grafter like those two, not both.
A VERY tough decision.
That is a tough one I would pick either to bat for my Life.
Agree.
But if I still stick by only picking one in an all time team given you have to essentially choose between Smith, Ponting and G Chappell for four and five cos Bradman walks in at three then that only leaves room for one of them at six ( where both seemed to be at their best )
Then again If I had Waugh and Border at five and six then I have to have Gilchrist at seven, Miller at eight ( which seems too low but where else does he go ? ) and probably Warne, Lillee and McGrath rounding out the team. That is a mighty fine line up I must say.
-
@MN5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Chris said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Chris said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
Test matches | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo
Find records of Highest career batting average in Test matches only on ESPNcricinfo.
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
Sir Viv is a funny one. Obviously so highly revered for the way he could tear an attack apart…..but an average of 50 whilst brilliant is not head and shoulders above anyone else. One of my early favourites as a player, his confidence and swagger was just awesome and always in the discussions for a greatest XI of all time.
Personally I make a point for Brian Lara being the second best batsman of all time. Average of 52.88 ( excellent ), scorer of some HUGE innings…..
….but for whatever reason he got just SIX not outs in 232 innings. He didn’t pad the average like others did…..Maybe he took more risks having to play for such a comparatively weak team so often ?
Compare that to contemporaries who scored over 10,000 runs like Tendulkar ( 33 in 329 ), Ponting ( 29 in 287 ), Kallis ( 40 in 280 ) and Dravid ( 32 in 286 ) and you get the picture. He still averaged more than two of these guys.
Also Lara had that “troubled genius” demeanour about him.
He was also the most thrilling batsman I’ve ever seen.
I do not think you can discount Alan Border in discussing Greats, he carried Australian Cricket on his back for quite a while he brought them out of a bad patch of form,and was one tough batsmen.
He would come out and to fire him self up would stare at the nearest fieldsman and give him the What the Fuck are you looking at,And the battle started.He had not much around him at times but as a lot of World class bowlers have said a tough fluffybunny to bowl to.
,maybe not n.1 or 2 but right up there for what he contributed to Australian Cricket.
Test 156 265 inng 44no's 11174 Runs HS205 AV.50.56 27 Cent 63 50'sOh definitely not. Border is a legend. Similar to Steve Waugh and I’d also suggest Shivnarine Chanderpaul was similar too.
Here’s the thing though. I can’t find room for Border AND Waugh in my all time Australian XI assuming Keith Miller and Adam Gilchrist make it. I think there’s only room for ONE plucky, never give the wicket away grafter like those two, not both.
A VERY tough decision.
That is a tough one I would pick either to bat for my Life.
Agree.
But if I still stick by only picking one in an all time team given you have to essentially choose between Smith, Ponting and G Chappell for four and five cos Bradman walks in at three then that only leaves room for one of them at six ( where both seemed to be at their best )
Then again If I had Waugh and Border at five and six then I have to have Gilchrist at seven, Miller at eight ( which seems too low but where else does he go ? ) and probably Warne, Lillee and McGrath rounding out the team. That is a mighty fine line up I must say.
Yeah I like that Millar at 8 is to low but what a side that is I would pick both and have have Gilchrist at seven, Miller at eight .For Me Chappell at 4 very elegant bat and he batted in a tough era, that is not to say Smith or Ponting don't deserve that spot.
I would love to see that team play -
@Chris said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Chris said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Chris said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
@Chris-B said in NZ v Pakistan:
@voodoo said in NZ v Pakistan:
@antipodean said in NZ v Pakistan:
@MN5 said in NZ v Pakistan:
First ever non Asian batsman to achieve this. Fucken awesome.
Clearly better than Warner.
See, I reckon that reasoning is bullshit
Take 2 blokes who average 50. One has an amazing record at home, averaging 80, but he’s not so good on the road, let’s say he averages 25 (we can all work the #games math to make it work). The other bloke averages 50 in every game in every continent he plays in.
Who is better? Why?
One guy can make runs anywhere at the same level. But the same guy should maybe be even better at home?
Seems an odd distinction to me
Firstly, let me just say on the case of Little Kane vs Wee Davey it's a no-contest because Kane fulfils your requirement - he's better at home and away than Dave (and Dave doesn't have to face the Australian attack) (and Kane doesn't walk round with sandpaper in his pocket).
I guess it comes down to whether you believe all runs are equal. (I don't think they are).
You have to give Dave some credit in that he opens, so his runs are likely tougher to get than someone who bats at 5 or 6.
But when you're assessing batsmen I think you have to take into account, where they get their runs, when they get them, and how they get them.
Test matches | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo
Find records of Highest career batting average in Test matches only on ESPNcricinfo.
You look at this list and there's a case to be made that Adam Voges was a better batsman than Sir Vivian, but Sir Viv got a knighthood and Adam didn't and nor did a lot of people who ended up higher on that list than Viv - something to do with aesthetics.
In Dave's case, I think his away record points to some evident weaknesses in his game - when the ball is seaming and on subcontinent pitches. I guess a strength is that when he gets in (usually at home) he books in for bed and breakfast - so excellent stamina, concentration and scores quickly. But technically, not as well-rounded as some - so "not as good".
Sir Viv is a funny one. Obviously so highly revered for the way he could tear an attack apart…..but an average of 50 whilst brilliant is not head and shoulders above anyone else. One of my early favourites as a player, his confidence and swagger was just awesome and always in the discussions for a greatest XI of all time.
Personally I make a point for Brian Lara being the second best batsman of all time. Average of 52.88 ( excellent ), scorer of some HUGE innings…..
….but for whatever reason he got just SIX not outs in 232 innings. He didn’t pad the average like others did…..Maybe he took more risks having to play for such a comparatively weak team so often ?
Compare that to contemporaries who scored over 10,000 runs like Tendulkar ( 33 in 329 ), Ponting ( 29 in 287 ), Kallis ( 40 in 280 ) and Dravid ( 32 in 286 ) and you get the picture. He still averaged more than two of these guys.
Also Lara had that “troubled genius” demeanour about him.
He was also the most thrilling batsman I’ve ever seen.
I do not think you can discount Alan Border in discussing Greats, he carried Australian Cricket on his back for quite a while he brought them out of a bad patch of form,and was one tough batsmen.
He would come out and to fire him self up would stare at the nearest fieldsman and give him the What the Fuck are you looking at,And the battle started.He had not much around him at times but as a lot of World class bowlers have said a tough fluffybunny to bowl to.
,maybe not n.1 or 2 but right up there for what he contributed to Australian Cricket.
Test 156 265 inng 44no's 11174 Runs HS205 AV.50.56 27 Cent 63 50'sOh definitely not. Border is a legend. Similar to Steve Waugh and I’d also suggest Shivnarine Chanderpaul was similar too.
Here’s the thing though. I can’t find room for Border AND Waugh in my all time Australian XI assuming Keith Miller and Adam Gilchrist make it. I think there’s only room for ONE plucky, never give the wicket away grafter like those two, not both.
A VERY tough decision.
That is a tough one I would pick either to bat for my Life.
Agree.
But if I still stick by only picking one in an all time team given you have to essentially choose between Smith, Ponting and G Chappell for four and five cos Bradman walks in at three then that only leaves room for one of them at six ( where both seemed to be at their best )
Then again If I had Waugh and Border at five and six then I have to have Gilchrist at seven, Miller at eight ( which seems too low but where else does he go ? ) and probably Warne, Lillee and McGrath rounding out the team. That is a mighty fine line up I must say.
Yeah I like that Millar at 8 is to low but what a side that is I would pick both and have have Gilchrist at seven, Miller at eight .For Me Chappell at 4 very elegant bat and he batted in a tough era, that is not to say Smith or Ponting don't deserve that spot.
I would love to see that team playWhichever way you go a seriously class batsman missed out…..not many other teams can name world class players in every spot. I’d say only WI, England and maybe Pakistan.
-
Not sure if this has been posted but it’s Robert Craddock’s 2022 Test team. He posted this a couple of days before Christmas.
USMAN KHAWAJA (Aus): The stats tell us it was a rugged year for opening batsmen, but not for Khawaja whose late-career peace of mind and contentment as a father of two has helped rejuvenate his cricket. His twin centuries in the SCG Test against England will forever be the gold stud of his career. Has 1079 runs at 71.9 from 10 Tests in 2022 with one match to play.
IMAM-UL-HAQ (Pak): Was the luckiest choice, and the last man chosen, but won respect as a gusty opener who made 157 and 111 not out against Australia in Rawalpindi in his first Test of the year and later 121 against England on the same ground.
MARNUS LABUSCHAGNE (Aus): Averaging above 58 for the fourth successive year with his recent 204, 104 not out and 163 in successive innings the highlights. Had to work harder for his runs in Pakistan where he made a 90 followed by a 104 in Sri Lanka.
DARYL MITCHELL (NZ): Has only played 12 Tests, including six in 2022, but anyone who did well against England in England this year deserves high praise and he scored 108, 190, 62 not out, 109 and 56 – they simply couldn’t get him out.
JONNY BAIRSTOW (Eng): Devastating performance and Khawaja is his only rival as batsman of the year. He was the flagbearer for the new revolution with six centuries, often at bull-at-a-gate pace like his 136 off 92 against New Zealand at Trent Bridge or two stirring centuries in the Test against India at Edgbaston. Could have improved on his 1061 runs at 66.3 had he not been out since August with a broken leg sustained in a golf accident.
BEN STOKES (Eng): Our captain and player of the year. Has 26 wickets, two centuries, four 50s and more sixes (26) than any other player from a highly productive year, but all of it recedes into the small print behind his stunning success as England captain. Notched nine wins in 10 matches with a brand of cavalier cricket never seen before, not the least by a team who couldn’t beat an egg for much of the previous two years. Amazing.
RISHABH PANT (India): Not the flashest gloveman in the world and at times his keeping is an untidy as his notoriously messy hotel room. But Pant remains one of the world’s most watchable cricketers and dangerous batsmen. Scored a century off 139 balls against South Africa at the Wanderers Stadium then a blistering 146 off 111 against England at Edgbaston.
MARCO JANSEN (RSA): Outstanding prospect. Giant left-arm quicks who can swing the ball will normally clean up around the globe and he shone in four countries this year – South Africa, New Zealand, England and Australia. Has only played eight Tests including seven in 2022 which reaped him 35 wickets at 17.0 with one match to play.
KAGISO RABABA (RSA): His career bowling average of 20.4 run per wicket is the domain of the absolute kings of his craft. Threatens wherever he goes with pace, bounce and occasional movement. Took 8-89 for the match against Australia in Brisbane last week – including a hellraising 4-13 in the second innings – despite leaving the impression his best work is still to come.
JIMMY ANDERSON (Eng): How could you leave out a 40-year-old bowler good enough to take 36 wickets at 19.8 in his 20th year as a Test bowler? He tormented India at Edgbaston and played a typically tidy role in England’s 3-0 win in Pakistan with a decisive four-wicket haul in the first Test. Astonishing performer.
NATHAN LYON (Aus): Australia’s most irreplaceable player was very solid again. Proved himself strong of mind and body by bowling Australia to a series victory in the last of three heavy duty Tests in Pakistan and his 9-121 underpinned another triumph in Sri Lanka. Has 43 wickets at 29.2 this year.
12TH MAN: PAT CUMMINS (Aus): Predictably good with 35 wickets at 21 and did well in his first full year as Australian captain to win a series in Pakistan that required every ounce of his calm, relentless mantra.
-
Pretty hard to argue much of this team.
ironically enough I’d put a question mark over Cairns as his numbers are a tad high/low for my liking but then again when he’s competing with Harris, Styris, Elliott, Neesham etc it becomes a bit of a no brainer. Oram was a pretty damn good ODI all rounder though, he’s worth a mention.
Definitely an argument for Kyle Mills or Matt Henry ahead of Boult who seems to make these teams by default ?
The others all walk in ( yep, I believe SENZ have 9/11 totally correct ) although would love to hear any glaring omissions if anyone has any.
-
No glaring omissions but I think Conway will end up taking Astles spot at the top there
-
-
@Gunner said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
If Mitchell keeps putting up big numbers he’d be hard to keep out too.
Currently averaging 52.5 at 98 SR, after 39 ODI’s.
I’m going to keep watching Mitchells career with great interest, I mean surely those numbers will dip, he’s just not THAT good a player….or is he ? time will tell.
I reckon Conway will be a serious contender for all time XI in both formats of the game in years to come ( but then again so might Mitchell )
Both these guys and Ravindra are making the loss of Taylor so much easier to take.
-
@MN5 He arguably didn't play enough, but Glenn Turner has a great ODI record - and it would be even better aside from a slightly shaky start and finish. Much higher average than Astle and only a slightly worse strike rate.
Eventually, the modern guys stats will overwhelm the older guys - Conway and/or Ravindra to displace Astle. Mitchell to displace Marty.
Chris Pringle vs Boult is also worth consideration.
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 He arguably didn't play enough, but Glenn Turner has a great ODI record - and it would be even better aside from a slightly shaky start and finish. Much higher average than Astle and only a slightly worse strike rate.
Eventually, the modern guys stats will overwhelm the older guys - Conway and/or Ravindra to displace Astle. Mitchell to displace Marty.
Chris Pringle vs Boult is also worth consideration.
yeah I think that’s the point I was making. Boult seems to make these teams by right when perhaps he shouldn’t
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 He arguably didn't play enough, but Glenn Turner has a great ODI record - and it would be even better aside from a slightly shaky start and finish. Much higher average than Astle and only a slightly worse strike rate.
Eventually, the modern guys stats will overwhelm the older guys - Conway and/or Ravindra to displace Astle. Mitchell to displace Marty.
Chris Pringle vs Boult is also worth consideration.
I don't think Crowe will ever be replaced. To borrow a word from the ABs, he has an aura that I don't think any other kiwi batsman has matched, and that matters a ton in these kinds of exercises. Kane is the undisputed number 1 batsman now by virtue of his average and number of centuries, but I don't think he matches Crowe's aura. Partly because Crowe retired due to injury and leaves us with that what if and partly because of Crowe's performances against Australia, which rightly or wrongly count for more in the kiwi sporting psyche.
-
@Cyclops said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Chris-B said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 He arguably didn't play enough, but Glenn Turner has a great ODI record - and it would be even better aside from a slightly shaky start and finish. Much higher average than Astle and only a slightly worse strike rate.
Eventually, the modern guys stats will overwhelm the older guys - Conway and/or Ravindra to displace Astle. Mitchell to displace Marty.
Chris Pringle vs Boult is also worth consideration.
I don't think Crowe will ever be replaced. To borrow a word from the ABs, he has an aura that I don't think any other kiwi batsman has matched, and that matters a ton in these kinds of exercises. Kane is the undisputed number 1 batsman now by virtue of his average and number of centuries, but I don't think he matches Crowe's aura. Partly because Crowe retired due to injury and leaves us with that what if and partly because of Crowe's performances against Australia, which rightly or wrongly count for more in the kiwi sporting psyche.
Dying young has an impact too.
-
