Black Caps vs Bangles
-
@Chris-B. said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Cairns was never really good enough to bat in the top 6 - he averaged 25 when he was tried there and he was tried there quite a lot.
Not sure how much stock I put in the whole 'batting position' argument. A career average of 33 ( bear in mind much of this was in a far less batting friendly era ) indicates someone who was more than capable.
-
@MN5 Yeah - But, Cairnsie was sort of there for a good time, not a long time. Which was fine - especially in the era in which he played - if you were part of the tail, but at six you were expected to occupy the crease.
He didn't ever prove himself capable of that role.
-
@Chris-B. said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@MN5 Yeah - But, Cairnsie was sort of there for a good time, not a long time. Which was fine - especially in the era in which he played - if you were part of the tail, but at six you were expected to occupy the crease.
He didn't ever prove himself capable of that role.
I know it's the done thing to bag Cairnsy a bit on here in light of the accusations he got but he was a natural stroke player for better or worse. Again, his overall record is outstanding.
-
look at you, white-knighting your ass off
-
@mariner4life said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
look at you, white-knighting your ass off
Trust you to jump on the Cairns bagging bandwagon. Don't you have talentless spinners to pump ?
I'm really unsure why one of our best ever gets so much shit.
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
look at you, white-knighting your ass off
Trust you to jump on the Cairns bagging bandwagon. Don't you have talentless spinners to pump ?
I'm really unsure why one of our best ever gets a much shit.
Cairns was a Grade A, 100% cock. Stats aren't everything though
- bowled us to victory a few times, not least of which on an English tour for our first ever test series win (With Nash I think - at Lords?)
- Scored some critical runs, including winning us a Champions Trophy (still our only piece of silverware)
- Also decided to entertain me at Lancaster Park with a 75 ball ton in his hundreth ODI. At the time the fifth fastest ever. That, kids, was when a strike rate of 100 was considered outstanding, boundaries were at the rope, and yuor bat would double as a tool to hammer in fence posts. Time was tough back then, you couldn't taste hops in the beer, computers were for nerds and if you were out on it no one had a cellphone to contact you with.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket-cairns-blasts-century-in-75-balls-1075134.html
So yeah, Cairns was great, but statistically not always there. Kind of like Jake Oram out-statting Freddie Flintoff... the stats can be deceiving. His ceiling was immense when he could be bothered (and allegedly wasn't being paid to fix)
-
@nzzp said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@MN5 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
look at you, white-knighting your ass off
Trust you to jump on the Cairns bagging bandwagon. Don't you have talentless spinners to pump ?
I'm really unsure why one of our best ever gets a much shit.
Cairns was a Grade A, 100% cock. Stats aren't everything though
- bowled us to victory a few times, not least of which on an English tour for our first ever test series win (With Nash I think - at Lords?)
- Scored some critical runs, including winning us a Champions Trophy (still our only piece of silverware)
- Also decided to entertain me at Lancaster Park with a 75 ball ton in his hundreth ODI. At the time the fifth fastest ever. That, kids, was when a strike rate of 100 was considered outstanding, boundaries were at the rope, and yuor bat would double as a tool to hammer in fence posts. Time was tough back then, you couldn't taste hops in the beer, computers were for nerds and if you were out on it no one had a cellphone to contact you with.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket-cairns-blasts-century-in-75-balls-1075134.html
So yeah, Cairns was great, but statistically not always there. Kind of like Jake Oram out-statting Freddie Flintoff... the stats can be deceiving. His ceiling was immense when he could be bothered (and allegedly wasn't being paid to fix)
Personality shouldn't come into it though should it? Our greatest ever was a stats driven, selfish prima donna by many accounts. If a 5 for and a century are worth the same in the general scheme of things then Cairns did this no less than 18 times in 62 tests. ( So one or the other in every 3.4 tests ) That's fucken brilliant by any measure.
-
-
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
look at you, white-knighting your ass off
Trust you to jump on the Cairns bagging bandwagon. Don't you have talentless spinners to pump ?
I'm really unsure why one of our best ever gets so much shit.
For every time Cairns played a key role in winning us a Champions Trophy or took three top order quick wickets as second change at the Gabba to rock the Channel Nein Commentary doyens, there were also times where you wanted to put your foot through the screen... (funnily enough, like McCullum as a player...) Cairns was a polarising player almost from his debut at the WACA.
Glenn Turner also made the occasional observation circa 1995.... for better or worse.
-
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Yeah, he's in the "not quite a good enough batsmen, not quite a good enough bowler" category at the moment. I think you really need to command your place in at least one of those disciplines to be an asset to the team. Otherwise the 6 batsmen / keeper / 4 bowlers would be my preference.
He has undoubted talent though, so I can see why they are persevering with him. IMO he needs to command the number 6 spot in the lineup if he wants to be in the team long-term, as I don't think he will ever be a big wicket taker.
There's no persevering. He's nailing his bowling role.
In his 5 tests at home he is only bowling about 20 overs per game. If your team is bowling 200 overs in a test then that isn't good enough. Vettori averaged 40 overs per game at home over his career. That's not nailing your role.
With Vettori we could pick a team like this: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/518947.html. Of course we got smashed but we only needed 4 bowlers partly that was because Vettori could bowl so many overs. We got away with just 4 quicks the next week in Hobart but i don't think that would have worked long term. Then when South Africa came (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/520603.html) we could play Vettori at 6 and pick 4 bowlers.
If Santner doesn't improve then you are limiting your options into how you configure your team. Having a genuine all rounder means you can do different things.
With respect. This is a poor use of stats.
Off the top of my head / Of his 5 tests at home, 4 have been this year v Pak and Bang where NZC have produce 4 green bowl first pitches.
Of course his workload was light in that sample. Those teams got rolled , with notable exception of Bang first test first innings.
-
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@Rapido said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Yeah, he's in the "not quite a good enough batsmen, not quite a good enough bowler" category at the moment. I think you really need to command your place in at least one of those disciplines to be an asset to the team. Otherwise the 6 batsmen / keeper / 4 bowlers would be my preference.
He has undoubted talent though, so I can see why they are persevering with him. IMO he needs to command the number 6 spot in the lineup if he wants to be in the team long-term, as I don't think he will ever be a big wicket taker.
There's no persevering. He's nailing his bowling role.
With Vettori we could pick a team like this: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/518947.html. Of course we got smashed but we only needed 4 bowlers partly that was because Vettori could bowl so many overs. We got away with just 4 quicks the next week in Hobart but i don't think that would have worked long term. Then when South Africa came (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/520603.html) we could play Vettori at 6 and pick 4 bowlers.
If Santner doesn't improve then you are limiting your options into how you configure your team. Having a genuine all rounder means you can do different things.
Your example of how, with vetorri, we could pick 4 bowlers. Is a scorecard where we used Brownlie and Guptill to bowl some part time overs. Because we ran out of bowlers and couldn't get them out.
If a Neesham or Anderson were around in 2011, or earlier during the Vettori era - they would have been picked (like Franklin at 6 that was tried at that time).
I'm really puzzled by almost everyone, except chrisb, on this thread.
-
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
A batting average higher than your bowling average speaks for itself. Not many New Zealanders can lay claim to that.
Ross Taylor can
This made me wonder just how many players with a decent test career have actually come out of it with this claim. A quick stats search gives me
Steve Waugh (51 batting and 37 bowling)
Kallis (55/32)
Dravid (52/39)
Border (50/39)
Dev (31/29)
M Waugh (41.8/41.2)
Miandad (52/40)
M Clarke (49/38)
Jayasuriya (40/34)
Pollock (32/23)
Hadlee (27/22)
Cairns (33/29)Obviously some of those guys are very good batsmen with long careers that were only part time bowlers but racked up a few overs.
Of the true allrounders Hadlee's figures are just Bradman like in their dominance of the stats. Pollock's figure are exceptional as well. Cairns stands up pretty well.
Best batting allrounder has to be Kallis. Best bowling allrounder Hadlee. -
@Crucial said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
@hydro11 said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
A batting average higher than your bowling average speaks for itself. Not many New Zealanders can lay claim to that.
Ross Taylor can
This made me wonder just how many players with a decent test career have actually come out of it with this claim. A quick stats search gives me
Steve Waugh (51 batting and 37 bowling)
Kallis (55/32)
Dravid (52/39)
Border (50/39)
Dev (31/29)
M Waugh (41.8/41.2)
Miandad (52/40)
M Clarke (49/38)
Jayasuriya (40/34)
Pollock (32/23)
Hadlee (27/22)
Cairns (33/29)Obviously some of those guys are very good batsmen with long careers that were only part time bowlers but racked up a few overs.
Of the true allrounders Hadlee's figures are just Bradman like in their dominance of the stats. Pollock's figure are exceptional as well. Cairns stands up pretty well.
Best batting allrounder has to be Kallis. Best bowling allrounder Hadlee.Hmmmm I guess I just imagined the careers of Sobers, Imran Khan and Beefy Botham. Where are they?
Imran definitely takes Hadlees spot as a bowling all rounder and Sobers possibly takes Kallis's as a batting one. As you say most of the rest are batsman who were ok bowlers every now and again. Tellingly to me the overrated Andrew Flintoff isn't on here. ( 8 centuries and five fors in 79 tests vs Cairns 18 in 62 )
-
-
@Crucial said in Black Caps vs Bangles:
Yes, you're right. I missed Botham (33/28), Sobers (57,34) and Khan (37/22).
Sobers over Kallis. Khan over Paddles. Freddie doesn't make the list.Kallis and Sobers are about even for me. A bloke who probably batted as well as Lara/Tendulkar with the added bonus of being about as good as Chris Martin with the ball! Fucken amazing player.
