Cricket - Best ever etc
-
Further to the post from @Dan54 about liking cricket more back in the day, it’s an excellent point and we seem to judge todays players so much harsher than the battlers of yesteryear. If Henry Nicholls played in the mid 80s I’m sure he’d be much more revered than he is today. Southee gets grief for irresponsible batting but Lance Cairns was lauded for his occasional big hits.
-
@MN5 Hirwani's test average is blown apart by the leg spinner B. S. Chandrasekhar's test average of 4.07. They were great occasions when the real bunnies strode confidently to the wicket and were roundly applauded each time they avoided getting dismissed (read played and missed or shouldered arms) and were practically given a standing ovation if they actually managed to get bat on ball!
-
-
@Catogrande Tuffers' batting average was over five so he must have edged a few away for singles. But you are right, I can remember him as a real duffer who, if he held the bat by the blade instead of the handle, it probably would not have made much difference!
-
@Chris-B said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
Pinetree doesn't make the team anymore,
Sorry, it's Xmas and I've run out of threads and I'm reduced to reading old cricket threads, but fuck off, Pinetree easily makes our best of team.
Bloody South Islanders trying to minimise his standing to hype up the second best openside this country has produced.
-
-
@Godder Totally get where you are coming from., but giving out a shout to Wilfred Rhodes.
The soinning all rounder started as an 11 but gradually worked his way up the orde, even opening 43 times (and scoring 2 centuries doing so).
Averaged 44 as an 11 and 30 overall
-
@Godder said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
On the far side of all this, Boult is probably the best test number 11 ever.
100%. Would bat at nine in most other teams but doesn’t get a chance cos others are better ( although Wags actually averages less ). An average of 15.81 is firmly in the “handy enough” category for me ( Lance Cairns averaged 16.28 and he generally batted eight or nine at test level )
I’ve seen Boult play some genuinely decent shots when he gets going.
Despite the fact we gave the world Chris Martin it must be said all of our of our tailenders since then can at least hold a bat.
-
@MN5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Godder said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
On the far side of all this, Boult is probably the best test number 11 ever.
100%. Would bat at nine in most other teams but doesn’t get a chance cos others are better ( although Wags actually averages less ). An average of 15.81 is firmly in the “handy enough” category for me ( Lance Cairns averaged 16.28 and he generally batted eight or nine at test level )
I’ve seen Boult play some genuinely decent shots when he gets going.
Despite the fact we gave the world Chris Martin it must be said all of our of our tailenders since then can at least hold a bat.
While none of this is factually incorrect. It is weird to compare him to Lance Cairns as an 8/9 when Boult himself has batted in a blackcaps teams with poor/unsuccessful number 8s for much of the decade he was in the team (Southee, Bracewell, Jamieson).
-
-
@Gunner said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido a bit rough to call Jamieson unsuccessful?
He’s obviously had injury problems of late, but from memory he’s done pretty well with that bat hasn’t he?Still early days for Jamieson.
Southee has cracked some impressive 50s although probably underachieved with the bat overall ( as the fern reminds us every summer )
Bracewell has massively underachieved with the bat at the highest level. His first class numbers are good.
-
@Gunner said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido a bit rough to call Jamieson unsuccessful?
He’s obviously had injury problems of late, but from memory he’s done pretty well with that bat hasn’t he?Not for a number 8.
He has done well because he has had the extra batting responsibilty placed on him right from debut. But he's an under-perfroming number 8
But, He's elevated a position too high because we have a 'shit' tail. No bunnies, but all of them 9s or 10s.
-
@Rapido said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Gunner said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido a bit rough to call Jamieson unsuccessful?
He’s obviously had injury problems of late, but from memory he’s done pretty well with that bat hasn’t he?Not for a number 8.
He has done well because he has had the extra batting responsibilty placed on him right from debut. But he's an under-perfroming number 8
But, He's elevated a position too high because we have a 'shit' tail. No bunnies, but all of them 9s or 10s.
Is he ? Number 8 is generally an all rounder, keeper or the best of the bowlers. I suspect Jamieson is the latter.
Averaging a shade under 20, what is a good number for you ? I think that’s acceptable
-
@MN5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Gunner said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido a bit rough to call Jamieson unsuccessful?
He’s obviously had injury problems of late, but from memory he’s done pretty well with that bat hasn’t he?Not for a number 8.
He has done well because he has had the extra batting responsibilty placed on him right from debut. But he's an under-perfroming number 8
But, He's elevated a position too high because we have a 'shit' tail. No bunnies, but all of them 9s or 10s.
Is he ? Number 8 is generally an all rounder, keeper or the best of the bowlers. I suspect Jamieson is the latter.
Averaging a shade under 20, what is a good number for you ? I think that’s acceptable
20 is the magic number for me. North of 20 for my number 8. But it is fairly semantic. An 18 v 22, depending on strengths/weaknesses elsewhere through the 11, it may not matter.
Jamieson is 10th in world out of 15, in his era. As a number 8. 2/3rd better than him, 1/3rd worse. 'Under performing' or perhaps 'below average' would have been a better description.
-
@Rapido said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@MN5 said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Gunner said in Cricket - best ever, trivia etc:
@Rapido a bit rough to call Jamieson unsuccessful?
He’s obviously had injury problems of late, but from memory he’s done pretty well with that bat hasn’t he?Not for a number 8.
He has done well because he has had the extra batting responsibilty placed on him right from debut. But he's an under-perfroming number 8
But, He's elevated a position too high because we have a 'shit' tail. No bunnies, but all of them 9s or 10s.
Is he ? Number 8 is generally an all rounder, keeper or the best of the bowlers. I suspect Jamieson is the latter.
Averaging a shade under 20, what is a good number for you ? I think that’s acceptable
20 is the magic number for me. North of 20 for my number 8. But it is fairly semantic. An 18 v 22, depending on strengths/weaknesses elsewhere through the 11, it may not matter.
Jamieson is 10th in world out of 15, in his era. As a number 8. 2/3rd better than him, 1/3rd worse. 'Under performing' or perhaps 'below average' would have been a better description.
I still argue it’s early days for him so we’ll see. I don’t want him neglecting his bowling to improve his batting especially with our other seamers on the way out. We don’t need another James Franklin.
We have been pretty spoilt with regular number 8s with guys like Paddles, Bracewell, C Cairns ( occasionally ) Vettori etc to be fair.
-
Paddles batted 7 a fair bit as well, not really a specialist batsman, but definitely very good for a bowler. Another common number 8 from the 80s was Ian Smith who was a useful dashing number 8-9 depending on the lineup.
Jamieson is probably not quite at their levels yet, but there's still time to get there.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
