RIP Martin Crowe

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Virgil" data-cid="562938" data-time="1457305806">
<div>
And besides would you rather play golf ( or do anything else for that matter) or go to a funeral? 
They are horrible glum affairs, most people prefer not to go if the chance was available. 
Just a click bait story. 
It's a public service so all are welcome, I could go but I have to work. Guess that makes me a selfish prick too.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The answer is identical for both, depends how much free piss is available afterwards or, best case scenario, during.
 
Just cos you played sport with someone doesn't mean ya got on with them. Similar case is a guy I worked with years ago dying, I didn't bother going to the funeral cos I thought he was an arsehole. Perhaps others feel the same about Crowe and from what I've heard on talkback he wasn't the easiest person to get on with.

Virgil

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="562961" data-time="1457310566">from what I've heard on talkback he wasn't the easiest person to get on with.</blockquote>
 
Geniuses like Crowe and myself tend to be hardwork. 
So this guy u knew died to get out of having to work with you anymore? 
Wow that's commitment

Bovidae

Firstly, RIP Martin. Like all on here I was still shocked when I heard the sad news. 
 
If you were a NZ cricket fan in the 1980s you usually wanted to be either Hadlee or Crowe. My first good cricket bat was a DF Magnum for only one reason.
 
As to the date of the funeral, I would hope that clashes with other commitments (both local and overseas) were considered when Friday was chosen.

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Virgil" data-cid="562964" data-time="1457311245">
<div>
Geniuses like Crowe and myself tend to be hardwork. 
So this guy u knew died to get out of having to work with you anymore? 
Wow that's commitment
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Crowe was never a genius, he was just very, very good. As for you your grammar and spelling ensure you don't qualify.
 
I'd already left along with a few others, perhaps he died out of boredom from having no one to nit pick at ?

Virgil

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="562994" data-time="1457313276">Crowe was never a genius, .</blockquote>
 
Are you trying to get punched in the back of the head?

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Virgil" data-cid="562999" data-time="1457313448">
<div>
Are you trying to get punched in the back of the head?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Wouldn't be from you at any rate cos you'd crack those delicate knuckles you use to type your tough fluffybunny threats with.
 
I'm just telling it like I see it, I have very fond memories of Crowe playing. Was he our best ? Yes.
 
On a World stage was he one of the best ? that's debatable, from his era that's an honour I'd bestow on the likes of Border, Gavaskar, Miandad, Richards.......

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="562994" data-time="1457313276">
<div>
Crowe was never a genius, he was just very, very good.
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The 1992 World Cup from a tactical perspective and conceiving Cricket Max is enough proof that he was a genius to me.
 
I still think Flem became a slightly better skipper, but he had much longer in the job.

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="563009" data-time="1457314109">
<div>
The 1992 World Cup from a tactical perspective and conceiving Cricket Max is enough proof that he was a genius to me.
 
I still think Flem became a slightly better skipper, but he had much longer in the job.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
That's a fair arguement, my judgement was mainly based on his batting ( actually now I think about it with him, Fleming, Vettori and BMac NZ cricket has had a fine legacy of captains which he started ) and yeah, everything about his efforts in the 1992 WC was sensational. I just think people might be trying to put him a bit high on the pedestal where Sir RJ alone sits.

Virgil

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="563009" data-time="1457314109">The 1992 World Cup from a tactical perspective and conceiving Cricket Max is enough proof that he was a genius to me. 
I still think Flem became a slightly better skipper, but he had much longer in the job.</blockquote>
 
Crowes weakness would be his tendency to let his emotions rule his head. 
Flem developed into a very cool quick thinking captain. The way he ripped into SA when they toured in the mid 2000s, particular his verbal assault on Graeme Smith showed that.

MN5

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.

No Quarter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="563018" data-time="1457315060">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You seem to have missed this post:
 
<div> </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Virgil" data-cid="562287" data-time="1457064448">
<div>
<img src="http://www.espncricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/235600/235623.jpg" alt="235623.jpg">
</div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
 
Quote
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 
56.02 Crowe's average in his first-class career, scoring 19608 runs in 412 innings. Among 469 batsmen who aggregated 15,000 or more runs in first-class cricket, only ten others had a better average than Crowe's. 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). 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. 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.
</blockquote>

Virgil

Don't let world class stats like that get in the way of a good argument..

MN5

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.

Virgil

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 
In fact only 3 batsmen in the history of cricket have scored more runs at a higher average. 
A couple of no hopers called Tendulkar and Boycott and someone called Donald Bradman??

MN5

Good old first class stats, that's why Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash are revered like they are.

Virgil

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="563024" data-time="1457316073">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.</blockquote>
 
Because for 6 years he was the best test batsmen in the game? 
He scored more hundreds, a lot of runs at an average higher than anyone else. 
Not for a 5 month period or a single summer. But for 6 years

Virgil

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="563027" data-time="1457316373">Good old first class stats, that's why Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash are revered like they are.</blockquote>
 
Crowe did better than both of them 
FC level and at test level. 
Next?

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Virgil" data-cid="563028" data-time="1457316416">
<div>
Because for 6 years he was the best test batsmen in the game? 
He scored more hundreds, a lot of runs at an average higher than anyone else. 
Not for a 5 month period or a single summer. But for 6 years
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Gooch and Border scored more in the same period though.

Virgil

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="563030" data-time="1457316914">Gooch and Border scored more in the same period though.</blockquote>
 
The played more tests, how did their averages compare ?

No Quarter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="563024" data-time="1457316073">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
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.

The Silver Fern

RIP Martin Crowe