RIP Martin Crowe
-
<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> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="563226" data-time="1457395493">
<div>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think that's a pretty damn fair summary CB. Still one or two "what if's" when considering his career in it's entirety. He's the best batsman NZ have ever had, no doubt. I guess when you pick apart stats you can pick and choose ones to back up an argument. An overall average of 45 to me is on the cusp of "very good" and "great" and perhaps subconsciously I might have pegged him in the former category prematurely, I did forget how sensational he was against the two Ws from Pakistan for example. The bad start in tests and the fucked knee at the end of his career sure didn't help so on the one hand you could argue he a) should have been better as a youngster and b) retired earlier. Then the average would have been over 50 and the conversation wouldn't even happen. As it stands I'd personally rate him our second best test player ever.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Virgil still talks out of his arse though :knuppel:</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="563229" data-time="1457396684">
<div>
<p>The bad start in tests and the fucked knee at the end of his career sure didn't help so on the one hand you could argue he a) should have been better as a youngster and
retired earlier. Then the average would have been over 50 and the conversation wouldn't even happen. As it stands I'd personally rate him our second best test player ever.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Virgil still talks out of his arse though :knuppel:</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Lots of other factors in play as well. I think the comparison with Waugh is interesting, because they were near contemporaries and had a pretty similar career trajectory - except Waugh spent a substantial amount of time batting in the lower middle-order of one of the strongest batting line-ups the game has seen, while Crowe largely batted at 4 behind a succession of dodgy openers (and lots in difficult NZ conditions).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you look at their cumulative career averages it tells a pretty stark tale.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Matches, Waugh, Crowe</p>
<p>10, 20.84, 20.68</p>
<p>20, 26.25, 28.18</p>
<p>30, 41.68, 38.17</p>
<p>40, 38.90, 42.11</p>
<p>50, 36.16, 45.24</p>
<p>60, 39.84, 47.25</p>
<p>70, 43.82, 47.98</p>
<p>80, 48.68</p>
<p>90, 50.13</p>
<p>100, 49.51</p>
<p>110, 50.41</p>
<p>120, 50.81</p>
<p>130, 50.23</p>
<p>140, 51.60</p>
<p>150, 49.38</p>
<p>160, 49.83 </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="563237" data-time="1457402382">
<div>
<p>Lots of other factors in play as well. I think the comparison with Waugh is interesting, because they were near contemporaries and had a pretty similar career trajectory - except Waugh spent a substantial amount of time batting in the lower middle-order of one of the strongest batting line-ups the game has seen, while Crowe largely batted at 4 behind a succession of dodgy openers (and lots in difficult NZ conditions).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you look at their cumulative career averages it tells a pretty stark tale.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Matches, Waugh, Crowe</p>
<p>10, 20.84, 20.68</p>
<p>20, 26.25, 28.18</p>
<p>30, 41.68, 38.17</p>
<p>40, 38.90, 42.11</p>
<p>50, 36.16, 45.24</p>
<p>60, 39.84, 47.25</p>
<p>70, 43.82, 47.98</p>
<p>80, 48.68</p>
<p>90, 50.13</p>
<p>100, 49.51</p>
<p>110, 50.41</p>
<p>120, 50.81</p>
<p>130, 50.23</p>
<p>140, 51.60</p>
<p>150, 49.38</p>
<p>160, 49.83 </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Fair call overall although the really shithouse openers really came to the fore towards the end of his career. Edgar and Wright could bat long periods at the very least and AH Jones and JF Reid knew one end of a bat from the other to put it mildly. Analysing stats is part of the reason I call Brian Lara the second best batsman of all time. Carrying a team that in his time went from sublime to ridiculous ( I think he still holds the records for the most test losses ) and only SIX not outs in his career ( most contemporaries of his had 20-30 ). Tendulkar had heaps of support, Lara's was often patchy at best.</p>
