Cricket - Best ever etc
-
@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.
-
he's doing considerably better than Pat Cummins who i consider a pretty handy bottom of the order bat.
-
@Chris-B said in Aussie Summer of Cricket:
I haven't paid much attention recently, but I've previously heard of Brathwaite, Roach and Alzarri Joseph in this Windies team - maybe da Silva.
If Clive Lloyd were dead he'd be turning in his grave!
……and to be honest I’m not sure he even qualifies for my aforementioned Windies 15-20 legends.
Very good batsman and a terrific captain…..
But if I’m making that list of legends then batsmen like Sobers, Richards, Lara, Headley, the three Ws ( google them ) and maybe Chanderpaul get in ahead of him.
Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson etc miss out despite all being bloody good.
In terms of bowlers you have Marshall ( I reckon the best test fast bowler of all time ) Ambrose, Garner, Holding, Roberts…plus some old timers I cant think of.
Croft, Bishop and Walsh were excellent too if below that absolute elite level ( injuries/bans etc the first two are Windies versions of Shane Bond in one sense )
They need a keeper. Dujon gets in.
This modern crop don’t compare. Roach is a very good pace bowler and I admire his guts and longevity. Holder is a terrific all rounder when he can be bothered playing.
-
@MN5 Clive would have a hard job breaking into the best ever Windies XI, but it would be hard to deny him a place in the Hall of Fame.
I think he's more legendary than Chanderpaul (I think Greenidge and Haynes are too, even though they've got lower averages - I'd have Clive a bit higher on the pantheon than either of those two as well - because he was captain of probably the greatest ever team).
I think Greenidge and Haynes play in the best ever Windies team - otherwise I think you're manufacturing an opener from the middle order.
Middle order is fucking tough to get into.
Headley, Richards, Lara, Sobers, probably Walcott as the keeper. Which omits Weekes, Worrell, Lloyd, Kanhai, Nurse, Chanderpaul and doubtless others I'm forgetting.
And then the bowlers - Gibbs, Ramadhin or Valentine if you need a spinner. Learie Constantine if you want another allrounder (probably surplus to requirements).
And a wealth of fast bowling options - including Griffith and Hall from the older days, but it's probably Marshall, Holding, Ambrose and Garner - Roberts and Walsh next off the rank.
-
@Chris-B said in Aussie Summer of Cricket:
@MN5 Clive would have a hard job breaking into the best ever Windies XI, but it would be hard to deny him a place in the Hall of Fame.
I think he's more legendary than Chanderpaul (I think Greenidge and Haynes are too, even though they've got lower averages - I'd have Clive a bit higher on the pantheon than either of those two as well - because he was captain of probably the greatest ever team).
I think Greenidge and Haynes play in the best ever Windies team - otherwise I think you're manufacturing an opener from the middle order.
Middle order is fucking tough to get into.
Headley, Richards, Lara, Sobers, probably Walcott as the keeper. Which omits Weekes, Worrell, Lloyd, Kanhai, Nurse, Chanderpaul and doubtless others I'm forgetting.
And then the bowlers - Gibbs, Ramadhin or Valentine if you need a spinner. Learie Constantine if you want another allrounder (probably surplus to requirements).
And a wealth of fast bowling options - including Griffith and Hall from the older days, but it's probably Marshall, Holding, Ambrose and Garner - Roberts and Walsh next off the rank.
So basically you’re saying my arbitrary figure of 15-20 is about right
Not sure if rotating any lot of four amazing fast bowlers makes someone a world class captain but Lloyd has the results I guess.
Also did Headley play enough to get in the team ?
I suppose Greenidge and Haynes get in for their amazing combo and the fact they are specialist openers, an area the Windies are relatively weak at compared to other departments.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
