Other Cricket
-
Yes that's certainly a fair point.
We went through a real all-rounder craze after Andrew Flintoff destroyed us in the 2005 Ashes. And we never found anyone like that (cue three more pages of Shane Watson chat).
Cameron Green looms as the best all-rounder we have had since Miller, but back issues have already struck so maybe he goes the Watto route and bats while bowling only occasionally when his body is right.
-
Yes that's certainly a fair point.
We went through a real all-rounder craze after Andrew Flintoff destroyed us in the 2005 Ashes. And we never found anyone like that (cue three more pages of Shane Watson chat).
Cameron Green looms as the best all-rounder we have had since Miller, but back issues have already struck so maybe he goes the Watto route and bats while bowling only occasionally when his body is right.
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
Yes that's certainly a fair point.
We went through a real all-rounder craze after Andrew Flintoff destroyed us in the 2005 Ashes. And we never found anyone like that (cue three more pages of Shane Watson chat).
Cameron Green looms as the best all-rounder we have had since Miller, but back issues have already struck so maybe he goes the Watto route and bats while bowling only occasionally when his body is right.
Jeepers did he lift for that series or what ?
I won't mentioned Shane "DRS" Watson. He's been dealt with already
-
pffft cricket is best when you have 10 guys who average 30, and can roll the arm over (the last guy averages 9 and bowls)
-
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
I think a genuine all rounder can be hugely valuable to a team, as it gives you an extra bowler or batsmen compared to the opposition. But, they have to command their place as either a bowler or batsmen (or keeper) first and foremost. Too often teams (particularly the Black Caps) have tried to shoe horn in all rounders that are not really good enough at either discipline to command a spot on its own, but are reasonably handy at both so get selected. That just weakens the team overall. The focus has to be on selecting your best 6 batsmen, your best keeper, and your best 4 bowlers, and then if any of them are good at the other discipline that's a huge bonus.
I take your point though, and I think bowling all rounders are the most valuable for that reason as your bowlers will be called upon to bat in most test matches; a guy coming in at 8 or 9 averaging 30 odd makes your batting lineup that much more formidable. A batting all rounder that can bowl a bit can be useful but at the same time your top 4 bowlers should be able to handle the bulk of the load, so the batting all rounder will often only really get used if the other team is piling it on and your 4 front line bowlers need a bit of a rest.
-
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
I think a genuine all rounder can be hugely valuable to a team, as it gives you an extra bowler or batsmen compared to the opposition. But, they have to command their place as either a bowler or batsmen (or keeper) first and foremost. Too often teams (particularly the Black Caps) have tried to shoe horn in all rounders that are not really good enough at either discipline to command a spot on its own, but are reasonably handy at both so get selected. That just weakens the team overall. The focus has to be on selecting your best 6 batsmen, your best keeper, and your best 4 bowlers, and then if any of them are good at the other discipline that's a huge bonus.
I take your point though, and I think bowling all rounders are the most valuable for that reason as your bowlers will be called upon to bat in most test matches; a guy coming in at 8 or 9 averaging 30 odd makes your batting lineup that much more formidable. A batting all rounder that can bowl a bit can be useful but at the same time your top 4 bowlers should be able to handle the bulk of the load, so the batting all rounder will often only really get used if the other team is piling it on and your 4 front line bowlers need a bit of a rest.
@No-Quarter said in Other Cricket:
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
I think a genuine all rounder can be hugely valuable to a team, as it gives you an extra bowler or batsmen compared to the opposition. But, they have to command their place as either a bowler or batsmen (or keeper) first and foremost. Too often teams (particularly the Black Caps) have tried to shoe horn in all rounders that are not really good enough at either discipline to command a spot on its own, but are reasonably handy at both so get selected. That just weakens the team overall. The focus has to be on selecting your best 6 batsmen, your best keeper, and your best 4 bowlers, and then if any of them are good at the other discipline that's a huge bonus.
I take your point though, and I think bowling all rounders are the most valuable for that reason as your bowlers will be called upon to bat in most test matches; a guy coming in at 8 or 9 averaging 30 odd makes your batting lineup that much more formidable. A batting all rounder that can bowl a bit can be useful but at the same time your top 4 bowlers should be able to handle the bulk of the load, so the batting all rounder will often only really get used if the other team is piling it on and your 4 front line bowlers need a bit of a rest.
Yes, this was the case right up until Sir Mitchell Santner took on board feedback from the fern and decided to become a legendary spinner who could bat a bit too.
-
SL win the toss and bat.
Karunaratne returns for his 100th and final test.
The Aussies chuck some kid from WA a cap, despite him having no first class wickets or a ton to show for it. We're just handing them out for fun, now
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
SL win the toss and bat.
Karunaratne returns for his 100th and final test.
The Aussies chuck some kid from WA a cap, despite him having no first class wickets or a ton to show for it. We're just handing them out for fun, now
Sheffield Shield players from the 90s and 00s turning over in their career graves.
-
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
SL win the toss and bat.
Karunaratne returns for his 100th and final test.
The Aussies chuck some kid from WA a cap, despite him having no first class wickets or a ton to show for it. We're just handing them out for fun, now
Sheffield Shield players from the 90s and 00s turning over in their career graves.
@antipodean said in Other Cricket:
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
SL win the toss and bat.
Karunaratne returns for his 100th and final test.
The Aussies chuck some kid from WA a cap, despite him having no first class wickets or a ton to show for it. We're just handing them out for fun, now
Sheffield Shield players from the 90s and 00s turning over in their career graves.
I get that we don't seem to give enough guys a chance - the continued existence of Marnus being a blight on the current selection panel IMO - but at least put in someone who has done something longer than a BBL and age cricket.
Makes it look like our "find the next big thing" rugby selections.
-
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
Smith's 36th Test ton. He looks cooked with over an hour remaining in the day
Fuck New Zealand cricket and fuck our scheduling for not giving KW an opportunity to try and catch him. We could easily have had 5-6 tests in Jan-March.
But in saying all that well done to an absolute modern great of the game
-
My takes on this:
Smith is absolute class, you have to admire the return to form. Probable pick for an Aussie all time XI.
Root gets the advantage of more tests but in saying that still has to score the runs. Probable pick for an all time England XI.
KW is hamstrung by the lack of tests as I and others have lamented on numerous occasions. Great return but could be higher with more chances. Quite comfortably New Zealand’s best ever batsman albeit with considerably less competition than the other three.
Kohli has fallen off a cliff at this level of cricket, doesn’t belong in this group anymore. A weird thing to say for a guy with 30 test hundreds but his last five years have been barren. Possible pick for an all time Indian XI
-
The stats that matter
Percentage of 100s per completed test innings and batting average - not even close for the top 2.
Smith 19.9% 56.74
Kane 19.5% 54.88
Kohli 15.2% 46.85
Root 14.1% 50.87@KiwiPie said in Other Cricket:
The stats that matter
Percentage of 100s per completed test innings and batting average - not even close for the top 2.
Smith 19.9% 56.74
Kane 19.5% 54.88
Kohli 15.2% 46.85
Root 14.1% 50.87Stephen Fleming just left the room…..
