Cricket: NZ vs England
-
-
-
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
316/5 at tea, excellent work by Watling and CdG. Still early in his career, but CdG would be getting up there as a test all-rounder.
He's got a better bowling strike-rate and average than Stokes, and a better batting average, yet somehow stokes is seen as the better all-rounder - usual fallacious case of equating limited over performances with Tests
-
@Virgil said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Watling is fast heading to a NZ great, if hes not already there.
He's there for me. His contributions are essential when they come... Like in this innings, digging is out if a hole. A lazy seventy if you come in at 500/4 is a very different beast.
For he, he's clutch. Outstanding contributor to the success of the side. He saves and wins games for us. I'm a fan
-
@Virgil said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Watling is fast heading to a NZ great, if hes not already there.
Pretty much has supplanted all the other claimants in my view - far better technical batsman than any of Lees, Wadworth or Smith, and far more consistent and steady than Parore. Glovework, Watling is on a par with Parore who was the most athletic and clean gloveman we had IMO. But I think Watling's work in the Sub-continent and Middle East and his handling of the varying deliveries of Boult, Southee and Wagner is what gets him past Parore and the others.
Finally his anchoring of the late Middle Order over the years ranks him as a NZ ATG. He's a Keeper first whose batting is not just a bonus but makes him a true all rounder - as opposed to a striker who can keep a bit
NB: I don't class McCullum as a keeper, per se, given his most effective test position was as a pure batsman
-
@Virgil said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Watling is fast heading to a NZ great, if hes not already there.
Maybe the most underrated NZ cricketer of the last 20 years. He is the glue to NZ's batting.
Another who has some connection to the pacific island of Tokoroa.
-
@Bovidae said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Virgil said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
Watling is fast heading to a NZ great, if hes not already there.
Maybe the most underrated NZ cricketer of the last 20 years. He is the glue to NZ's batting.
Another who has some connection to the pacific island of Tokoroa.
Think it was on cricinfo a few weeks ago, stat wise no keeper has averaged more with the bat in tests since 2014(i think).
Was a decent time frame anyway. -
@SynicBast said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
316/5 at tea, excellent work by Watling and CdG. Still early in his career, but CdG would be getting up there as a test all-rounder.
He's got a better bowling strike-rate and average than Stokes, and a better batting average, yet somehow stokes is seen as the better all-rounder - usual fallacious case of equating limited over performances with Tests
I think de Grandhomme suffers from a perception that he scores 'easy' runs, and gets out softly. Haven't looked at his stats to judge the former, but he's definitely guilty of the latter. Batting at 7 (vs 6 for Stokes) doesn't help the perception either.
Stokes has a lot more tons too.
-
-
-
@SynicBast said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
316/5 at tea, excellent work by Watling and CdG. Still early in his career, but CdG would be getting up there as a test all-rounder.
He's got a better bowling strike-rate and average than Stokes, and a better batting average, yet somehow stokes is seen as the better all-rounder - usual fallacious case of equating limited over performances with Tests
Stokes has played a lot more tests and against tougher opposition. He's had 26 Ashes innings with the bat, where Colin has never played Australia. Similarly, Stokes has played plenty against India, where Colin never has.
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@SynicBast said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
@Godder said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
316/5 at tea, excellent work by Watling and CdG. Still early in his career, but CdG would be getting up there as a test all-rounder.
He's got a better bowling strike-rate and average than Stokes, and a better batting average, yet somehow stokes is seen as the better all-rounder - usual fallacious case of equating limited over performances with Tests
Stokes has played a lot more tests and against tougher opposition. He's had 26 Ashes innings with the bat, where Colin has never played Australia. Similarly, Stokes has played plenty against India, where Colin never has.
What’s the old saying, you can only play what’s in front of you?
Also the fact he plays for NZ means he’s never going to get the usual plaudits that a good English, Aussie or Indian cricketer are going to get.
