NZ tour of India
-
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@canefan said in NZ tour of India:
@act-crusader said in NZ tour of India:
@hooroo said in NZ tour of India:
@rotated said in NZ tour of India:
@mariner4life said in NZ tour of India:
nice bit of tail end heroics and all but
we were in position like 3 different times to ram home an advantage and we gave it up each time. We're better than fighting draws, even in india. We let them off the hook repeatedly.
Winning in India is fucking hard (see dogmeat above) so when you get a sniff you need to be ruthless.
It was semi-predictable though given the undercooked middle order and having only really two and a half test quality bowlers. But like you my hopes were certainly up at 150/0 and then at 51/5.
All in all for the first match in an away series against a big 3 side I will take a draw all day, especially after losing the toss. Flush the dunny, move on and pick Wags for the second test.
Am I being ridiculous in being quietly confident for the next test? We now have had a decent warm-up in the conditions and we are going to a wicket that won't be as harsh for us?
Wagner bowling 50+ overs and at least one of Taylor or Nichols being due for some runs.We might get to enforce a follow-on if we win the toss
Wagner will definitely help our bowling, but I’m still concerned about putting up enough runs.
I think we have to stick with Nicholls and Taylor. They are underdone which doesn't help. Swapping Mitchell in would be a bold gamble
Nicholls isnt underdone.
Where has he been playing?
@canefan said in NZ tour of India:
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@canefan said in NZ tour of India:
@act-crusader said in NZ tour of India:
@hooroo said in NZ tour of India:
@rotated said in NZ tour of India:
@mariner4life said in NZ tour of India:
nice bit of tail end heroics and all but
we were in position like 3 different times to ram home an advantage and we gave it up each time. We're better than fighting draws, even in india. We let them off the hook repeatedly.
Winning in India is fucking hard (see dogmeat above) so when you get a sniff you need to be ruthless.
It was semi-predictable though given the undercooked middle order and having only really two and a half test quality bowlers. But like you my hopes were certainly up at 150/0 and then at 51/5.
All in all for the first match in an away series against a big 3 side I will take a draw all day, especially after losing the toss. Flush the dunny, move on and pick Wags for the second test.
Am I being ridiculous in being quietly confident for the next test? We now have had a decent warm-up in the conditions and we are going to a wicket that won't be as harsh for us?
Wagner bowling 50+ overs and at least one of Taylor or Nichols being due for some runs.We might get to enforce a follow-on if we win the toss
Wagner will definitely help our bowling, but I’m still concerned about putting up enough runs.
I think we have to stick with Nicholls and Taylor. They are underdone which doesn't help. Swapping Mitchell in would be a bold gamble
Nicholls isnt underdone.
Where has he been playing?
He had 2 rounds of Plunket Shield before leaving. Same as most of the others. (plus the white ball tour of Bangladesh and whatever training they managed in Pakistan)
The underdone guys are the 3 caught in lockdowns (Taylor plus the 2 spinners) and Will Young who was injured and missed the 2 rounds of Plunket Shield.
-
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30th@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30thHe's good. But he's no Axar Patel ....
averaging 11.24
-
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30thHe's good. But he's no Axar Patel ....
averaging 11.24
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30thHe's good. But he's no Axar Patel ....
averaging 11.24
After 4 matches all in the conditions he grew up in?
He's a fine bowler but that's why you put a minimum of wickets (50) or matches on cricket stats to see if the results contain outliers. -
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30thHe's good. But he's no Axar Patel ....
averaging 11.24
After 4 matches all in the conditions he grew up in?
He's a fine bowler but that's why you put a minimum of wickets (50) or matches on cricket stats to see if the results contain outliers.@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30thHe's good. But he's no Axar Patel ....
averaging 11.24
After 4 matches all in the conditions he grew up in?
He's a fine bowler but that's why you put a minimum of wickets (50) or matches on cricket stats to see if the results contain outliers.For sure. Axar is no Jamieson. It's unlikely he will play an overseas test (or non-Asian test) until / unless Jadeja or Ashwin retire or are injured.
But the 50 over threshold you've used is a bit false. There have been other players who have rushed to 50 wickets but who's careers then flattened out more to the norm and therefore who's averages at that moment in time aren't captured in your list.
The may or may not be as good as Jamieson's of 15ish, I can't remember. But off the top of my head I recall Philander and Brett Lee racing ahead early with bowling averages in the teens.
-
I'll look it up ...
Brett Lee races to 42 wickets in 7 tests at an average of 16.07.Then he broke his elbow throwing from the boundary. Had a bit of a break and returned in an away ashes.
Then took him another 4 tests to get the next 8 wickets to pass 50. Ballooned out to 11 tests, 50 wickets, average of 21.96 (and it continued in that direction).
-
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30thHe's good. But he's no Axar Patel ....
averaging 11.24
After 4 matches all in the conditions he grew up in?
He's a fine bowler but that's why you put a minimum of wickets (50) or matches on cricket stats to see if the results contain outliers.For sure. Axar is no Jamieson. It's unlikely he will play an overseas test (or non-Asian test) until / unless Jadeja or Ashwin retire or are injured.
But the 50 over threshold you've used is a bit false. There have been other players who have rushed to 50 wickets but who's careers then flattened out more to the norm and therefore who's averages at that moment in time aren't captured in your list.
The may or may not be as good as Jamieson's of 15ish, I can't remember. But off the top of my head I recall Philander and Brett Lee racing ahead early with bowling averages in the teens.
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30thHe's good. But he's no Axar Patel ....
averaging 11.24
After 4 matches all in the conditions he grew up in?
He's a fine bowler but that's why you put a minimum of wickets (50) or matches on cricket stats to see if the results contain outliers.For sure. Axar is no Jamieson. It's unlikely he will play an overseas test (or non-Asian test) until / unless Jadeja or Ashwin retire or are injured.
But the 50 over threshold you've used is a bit false. There have been other players who have rushed to 50 wickets but who's careers then flattened out more to the norm and therefore who's averages at that moment in time aren't captured in your list.
The may or may not be as good as Jamieson's of 15ish, I can't remember. But off the top of my head I recall Philander and Brett Lee racing ahead early with bowling averages in the teens.
If you look at first 10 matches then Philander had 63 wickets at 15.97. That'skind of the outstanding numbers I think Jamieson will produce as well. Philander ended up around 22avg which is still mighty impressive for 200+ wickets and up with the Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Trueman levels Paddles was 22.3.
Time will tell but it is a fine start and fingers crossed we might see what the likes of Bond may have produced. He's streaks ahead of any other NZer on the fastest 50 list and the most impressive part is that he has achieved it over three different countries. -
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30thHe's good. But he's no Axar Patel ....
averaging 11.24
After 4 matches all in the conditions he grew up in?
He's a fine bowler but that's why you put a minimum of wickets (50) or matches on cricket stats to see if the results contain outliers.For sure. Axar is no Jamieson. It's unlikely he will play an overseas test (or non-Asian test) until / unless Jadeja or Ashwin retire or are injured.
But the 50 over threshold you've used is a bit false. There have been other players who have rushed to 50 wickets but who's careers then flattened out more to the norm and therefore who's averages at that moment in time aren't captured in your list.
The may or may not be as good as Jamieson's of 15ish, I can't remember. But off the top of my head I recall Philander and Brett Lee racing ahead early with bowling averages in the teens.
If you look at first 10 matches then Philander had 63 wickets at 15.97. That'skind of the outstanding numbers I think Jamieson will produce as well. Philander ended up around 22avg which is still mighty impressive for 200+ wickets and up with the Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Trueman levels Paddles was 22.3.
Time will tell but it is a fine start and fingers crossed we might see what the likes of Bond may have produced. He's streaks ahead of any other NZer on the fastest 50 list and the most impressive part is that he has achieved it over three different countries.@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30thHe's good. But he's no Axar Patel ....
averaging 11.24
After 4 matches all in the conditions he grew up in?
He's a fine bowler but that's why you put a minimum of wickets (50) or matches on cricket stats to see if the results contain outliers.For sure. Axar is no Jamieson. It's unlikely he will play an overseas test (or non-Asian test) until / unless Jadeja or Ashwin retire or are injured.
But the 50 over threshold you've used is a bit false. There have been other players who have rushed to 50 wickets but who's careers then flattened out more to the norm and therefore who's averages at that moment in time aren't captured in your list.
The may or may not be as good as Jamieson's of 15ish, I can't remember. But off the top of my head I recall Philander and Brett Lee racing ahead early with bowling averages in the teens.
If you look at first 10 matches then Philander had 63 wickets at 15.97. That'skind of the outstanding numbers I think Jamieson will produce as well. Philander ended up around 22avg which is still mighty impressive for 200+ wickets and up with the Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Trueman levels Paddles was 22.3.
Time will tell but it is a fine start and fingers crossed we might see what the likes of Bond may have produced. He's streaks ahead of any other NZer on the fastest 50 list and the most impressive part is that he has achieved it over three different countries.He's a truely incredible talent. Just so perfectly rounded to get wickets in all conditions. I fully expect him to eventually settle into the low 20s bowling averages, because .... that's just what happens, even to the best.
I said earlier in thread that I suspected he might be the least effective of our 3 seamers on this tour due to lack of bounce. But he was superb on that Kanpur sponge.
-
Waqar Younis was another interesting one.
After 5 test he only had 10 wickets at an average of 46.10.
But by 10 tests he had 53 wickets at an average of 18.54.The longest he could keep that average below 20 was 35 tests, 194 wickets, average 19.72
Final career stats were 373 wickets at 23.56.
-
Waqar Younis was another interesting one.
After 5 test he only had 10 wickets at an average of 46.10.
But by 10 tests he had 53 wickets at an average of 18.54.The longest he could keep that average below 20 was 35 tests, 194 wickets, average 19.72
Final career stats were 373 wickets at 23.56.
@rapido Steyn is another interesting progression.
After 10 matches he had 38 wickets at 32.58 but by 20 matches had 100 wickets at 22. Consistently kept his avg around that 22 for another 73 matches and 339 wickets! Avg ranged from 21.42 to 23.99. That's amazing consistency
-
Paddles average from about 1980 onwards must have been exceptional given he was ( relatively speaking ) a bit of a tear away early in his career.
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
Paddles average from about 1980 onwards must have been exceptional given he was ( relatively speaking ) a bit of a tear away early in his career.
If that was a guess it's fairly bang on.
It was 1980 and 26 matches before he dipped his avg into the 20s and stayed there. From that point he just slowly brought that avg down. Mainly by being more accurate as his economy rate followed his avg going from mid 3 an over to mid 2.
Same wickets at same rate for less runs -
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
Paddles average from about 1980 onwards must have been exceptional given he was ( relatively speaking ) a bit of a tear away early in his career.
If that was a guess it's fairly bang on.
It was 1980 and 26 matches before he dipped his avg into the 20s and stayed there. From that point he just slowly brought that avg down. Mainly by being more accurate as his economy rate followed his avg going from mid 3 an over to mid 2.
Same wickets at same rate for less runs@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
Paddles average from about 1980 onwards must have been exceptional given he was ( relatively speaking ) a bit of a tear away early in his career.
If that was a guess it's fairly bang on.
It was 1980 and 26 matches before he dipped his avg into the 20s and stayed there. From that point he just slowly brought that avg down. Mainly by being more accurate as his economy rate followed his avg going from mid 3 an over to mid 2.
Same wickets at same rate for less runsFrom 1980 onwards.
60 matches, 324 wickets, average 19.70 -
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
Paddles average from about 1980 onwards must have been exceptional given he was ( relatively speaking ) a bit of a tear away early in his career.
If that was a guess it's fairly bang on.
It was 1980 and 26 matches before he dipped his avg into the 20s and stayed there. From that point he just slowly brought that avg down. Mainly by being more accurate as his economy rate followed his avg going from mid 3 an over to mid 2.
Same wickets at same rate for less runsFrom 1980 onwards.
60 matches, 324 wickets, average 19.70@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
Paddles average from about 1980 onwards must have been exceptional given he was ( relatively speaking ) a bit of a tear away early in his career.
If that was a guess it's fairly bang on.
It was 1980 and 26 matches before he dipped his avg into the 20s and stayed there. From that point he just slowly brought that avg down. Mainly by being more accurate as his economy rate followed his avg going from mid 3 an over to mid 2.
Same wickets at same rate for less runsFrom 1980 onwards.
60 matches, 324 wickets, average 19.70That's some fine numbers but I guess he had to learn some early lessons to become that bowler.
Impressive thing is that once he got it he was pretty consistent and didn't slip away.
-
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
Paddles average from about 1980 onwards must have been exceptional given he was ( relatively speaking ) a bit of a tear away early in his career.
If that was a guess it's fairly bang on.
It was 1980 and 26 matches before he dipped his avg into the 20s and stayed there. From that point he just slowly brought that avg down. Mainly by being more accurate as his economy rate followed his avg going from mid 3 an over to mid 2.
Same wickets at same rate for less runsFrom 1980 onwards.
60 matches, 324 wickets, average 19.70That's some fine numbers but I guess he had to learn some early lessons to become that bowler.
Impressive thing is that once he got it he was pretty consistent and didn't slip away.
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
Paddles average from about 1980 onwards must have been exceptional given he was ( relatively speaking ) a bit of a tear away early in his career.
If that was a guess it's fairly bang on.
It was 1980 and 26 matches before he dipped his avg into the 20s and stayed there. From that point he just slowly brought that avg down. Mainly by being more accurate as his economy rate followed his avg going from mid 3 an over to mid 2.
Same wickets at same rate for less runsFrom 1980 onwards.
60 matches, 324 wickets, average 19.70That's some fine numbers but I guess he had to learn some early lessons to become that bowler.
Impressive thing is that once he got it he was pretty consistent and didn't slip away.
Yeah, 1978 was probably the threshold year for him. That was also when he signed for Notts.
-
It took Hadlee from 1973 until 1976 to become a permanent feature of the side, via this 7-23 and 11 wicket haul: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/india-tour-of-new-zealand-1975-76-62323/new-zealand-vs-india-3rd-test-63158/full-scorecard
From a fairly vague memory of one of his books, the gist was
- He (or others) felt he was lucky to be selected (ahead of Hedley Howarth, who may have been 12th man?)
- He was only picked to bowl second change... but made the most of it, and the rest began to follow
Notts and professionalism also made a big difference for R J Hadlee.
-
It took Hadlee from 1973 until 1976 to become a permanent feature of the side, via this 7-23 and 11 wicket haul: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/india-tour-of-new-zealand-1975-76-62323/new-zealand-vs-india-3rd-test-63158/full-scorecard
From a fairly vague memory of one of his books, the gist was
- He (or others) felt he was lucky to be selected (ahead of Hedley Howarth, who may have been 12th man?)
- He was only picked to bowl second change... but made the most of it, and the rest began to follow
Notts and professionalism also made a big difference for R J Hadlee.
@donsteppa said in NZ tour of India:
It took Hadlee from 1973 until 1976 to become a permanent feature of the side, via this 7-23 and 11 wicket haul: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/india-tour-of-new-zealand-1975-76-62323/new-zealand-vs-india-3rd-test-63158/full-scorecard
From a fairly vague memory of one of his books, the gist was
- He (or others) felt he was lucky to be selected (ahead of Hedley Howarth, who may have been 12th man?)
- He was only picked to bowl second change... but made the most of it, and the rest began to follow
Notts and professionalism also made a big difference for R J Hadlee.
100%. If it wasn’t for that he’d just be remembered as a pretty good player, not our GOAT. ( disclaimer: will reassess when KW retires )
