RIP Martin Crowe
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="563018" data-time="1457315060">
<div>
<p>To add a bit further. Crowe would be the second name I'd put down in an all time NZ XI after the obvious one. He was definitely a "NZ Great" but guys at his level internationally would be Richardson, Gooch, Greenidge, Haynes, Gower, M Waugh.....fucken good players every one of them but still a notch down on the very best of the best.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>You seem to have missed this post:</p>
<p> </p>
<div> </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Virgil" data-cid="562287" data-time="1457064448">
<div>
<p><img src="http://www.espncricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/235600/235623.jpg" alt="235623.jpg"></p>
</div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p class="" style="font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Quote</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-size:28px;">56.02</span> Crowe's average in his first-class career, scoring 19608 runs in 412 innings. <strong>Among 469 batsmen who aggregated 15,000 or more runs in first-class cricket, only ten others had a better average than Crowe's</strong>. He made 71 centuries in his first-class career which is the second-most among all New Zealand cricketers behind <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/India/content/player/38622.html" title="External link">Turner's 103</a>. Crowe had a great ability of converting fifties into hundreds. His ratio of centuries to half-centuries in first-class career was 0.88 (71 centuries and 80 half-centuries). <strong>Among 166 players who scored 50 or more centuries, only the legendary<a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/India/content/player/4188.html" title="External link">Bradman</a> (1.69) and <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/14022.html" title="External link">Wally Hammond</a> (0.90) had a better ratio than Crowe</strong>. In Tests also, Crowe made 17 centuries and only 18 half-centuries, which puts him eighth among the 71 batsmen with 15 or more centuries in terms of that ratio.</p>
</blockquote> -
Another 400 first class runs and he would have finished with the 3rd highest first class average in the history of cricket for anyone scoring 20,000 runs<br>
In fact only 3 batsmen in the history of cricket have scored more runs at a higher average.<br>
A couple of no hopers called Tendulkar and Boycott and someone called Donald Bradman?? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="563024" data-time="1457316073"><p>Not arguing, just stating an opinion that differs from yours. Loads of guys look great when you arbitrarily take out stats here and there. Why not include pre 85 and post 91 ? aw yeah, cos that makes the average lower, that's why.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Because for 6 years he was the best test batsmen in the game?<br>
He scored more hundreds, a lot of runs at an average higher than anyone else.<br>
Not for a 5 month period or a single summer. But for 6 years -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="563027" data-time="1457316373"><p>Good old first class stats, that's why Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash are revered like they are.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Crowe did better than both of them<br>
FC level and at test level.<br><br>
Next? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Virgil" data-cid="563028" data-time="1457316416">
<div>
<p>Because for 6 years he was the best test batsmen in the game?<br>
He scored more hundreds, a lot of runs at an average higher than anyone else.<br>
Not for a 5 month period or a single summer. But for 6 years</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Gooch and Border scored more in the same period though.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="563024" data-time="1457316073">
<div>
<p>Not arguing, just stating an opinion that differs from yours. Loads of guys look great when you arbitrarily take out stats here and there. Why not include pre 85 and post 91 ? aw yeah, cos that makes the average lower, that's why.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Take your point but as Virgil says 6 years in not a flash in the pan, it's an extended period of dominance in an era of great bowlers. Beefy Botham is rated an all time great not because of what his stats ended up on, but because of the extended period where he dominated the game.</p> -
<p>Beefys efforts led to more test victories for the poms though.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So either Crowe is "very good" or "great" depending on viewpoints. This is going nowhere, I can point out the fact that Crowe was no where near Geoff Armstrongs book of "100 greatest cricketers" and I'm sure Virgil will bounce back with something supporting his claims. Who cares, at the end of the day it's an argument between two blokes who either have nothing to do or are extremely good at multi tasking.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I might go and check out the Nick Willis porn thread, looks more fun.</p> -
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="563038" data-time="1457317548">
<div>
<p>Beefys efforts led to more test victories for the poms though.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I'd never really thought about it until this comment - but who was the best batsman Crowe batted with throughout his career? Batting in a partnership helps considerably the fact he achieved such greatness with probably Wright and Jones being his best colleagues (and both were flawed/unorthodox in their own ways) is a huge feather in his cap.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ditto Hadlee working with Chats and little else.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That isn't to say Edgar, Coney, Greatbatch, Smith etc didn't have their moments and talents - but when viewed against the attacks of that 1985-1995 decade they were all severely outmatched.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="563048" data-time="1457319409"><p>I'd never really thought about it until this comment - but who was the best batsman Crowe batted with throughout his career? Batting in a partnership helps considerably the fact he achieved such greatness with probably Wright and Jones being his best colleagues (and both were flawed/unorthodox in their own ways) is a huge feather in his cap.<br><br>
Ditto Hadlee working with Chats and little else.<br><br>
That isn't to say Edgar, Coney, Greatbatch, Smith etc didn't have their moments and talents - but when viewed against the attacks of that 1985-1995 decade they were all severely outmatched.</p></blockquote>
<br>
J F Reid but he played less than 20 tests.<br>
Easily Jones, or Wright. <br>
Jones too finished with a very good record, just didn't play enough tests. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="563038" data-time="1457317548">
<div>
<p>Beefys efforts led to more test victories for the poms though.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Surely England HAD A BETTER 'TEAM' AROUND HIM AT THE TIME, MAKING HIS JOB EASIER, WHEREAS cROWE (damn caps) wouldn't have had the support with bat and ball to help, so a lot more weight on his shoulders.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="563024" data-time="1457316073">
<div>
<p>Not arguing, <strong>just stating an opinion that differs from yours. </strong>Loads of guys look great when you arbitrarily take out stats here and there. Why not include pre 85 and post 91 ? aw yeah, cos that makes the average lower, that's why.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Hey buddy, lets not drag the Flag debate into this thread aye :whistle:</p> -
<p>Crowe's career stats are probably not good enough that he'll go down in history as a global great. Circumstances sort of conspired against him and he didn't get the same opportunity that Steve Waugh got to overcome a too early start in test cricket.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That doesn't matter. Anyone who watched him should recognize that they were watching one of the very best batsmen they will ever see.</p>
