Other Cricket
-
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…..
-
@KiwiPie yep, Smith and Kane are a long way ahead. It's daylight between them and Root, and then even more daylight to Kohli. We are very lucky to have watched Smith and our very own Kane in their prime this past decade.
Of course Smith has a big fat asterisk next to his name for being a dirty cheater
So really King Kane sits on the throne alone in my completely unbiased opinion. -
I think Root is better than Kane.
All fabulous players, though. All the other 3 have higher peaks than Kane IMO. But for an overall career ranking - I would rank Kohli lowest out of the 4 due to not sustaining it long enough compared to the (tough) competition.
Root, albeit handicapping himself for the first 2-thirds or 3-quarters of his career with his crappy conversion rates, has squeaked ahead of Kane IMO, due to better performances against more of the better teams and away from home.
But, if we are talking all 3 formats, and not just tests. Then Kohli re-enters that chat due to his crazy good record across the 3 for a long period of time.
-
Kohli's record is weird. He has succeeded in some of the toughest places, but then had struggles in 'easier' situations. I reckon he struggles to focus a bit when the pressure is off, but when under the crunch brings his A game. Pressure Kohli belongs in the 'big four'. Easy Kohli is an entirely unremarkable decent test batter.
-
I think I stopped reading after he described him as an incredible batsman…..
-
Lol fuck off as much as I loved Warney he's not the greatest cricketer of all time
-
he's got a greater claim to "greatest" than Kallis
@mariner4life said in Other Cricket:
he's got a greater claim to "greatest" than Kallis
Probably a fair call.
Kallis was awfully dull whereas Warnie absolutely captured the imagination like few ( if any ) before him.
Gilly should have left out the bullshit about the batting though, Warnie was about Southee level in that department.
-
For the record I think Kallis is in the conversation for greatest all rounder, but not greatest cricketer, his bowling wasn't good enough and his batting while excellent wasn't above his peers (like Ponting in his prime etc)
-
For the record I think Kallis is in the conversation for greatest all rounder, but not greatest cricketer, his bowling wasn't good enough and his batting while excellent wasn't above his peers (like Ponting in his prime etc)
@No-Quarter said in Other Cricket:
For the record I think Kallis is in the conversation for greatest all rounder, but not greatest cricketer, his bowling wasn't good enough and his batting while excellent wasn't above his peers (like Ponting in his prime etc)
Exactly this, if it was greatest alrounder then I think he is a leading contender, but greatest cricketer seems a massive stretch surely
-
Murali was a batter spinner than Warne
(just tagging @NTA so he sees this)
@No-Quarter said in Other Cricket:
Murali was a batter spinner than Warne
(just tagging @NTA so he sees this)
What's a "batter spinner"?
-
I think Root is better than Kane.
All fabulous players, though. All the other 3 have higher peaks than Kane IMO. But for an overall career ranking - I would rank Kohli lowest out of the 4 due to not sustaining it long enough compared to the (tough) competition.
Root, albeit handicapping himself for the first 2-thirds or 3-quarters of his career with his crappy conversion rates, has squeaked ahead of Kane IMO, due to better performances against more of the better teams and away from home.
But, if we are talking all 3 formats, and not just tests. Then Kohli re-enters that chat due to his crazy good record across the 3 for a long period of time.
@Rapido said in Other Cricket:
I think Root is better than Kane.
All fabulous players, though. All the other 3 have higher peaks than Kane IMO. But for an overall career ranking - I would rank Kohli lowest out of the 4 due to not sustaining it long enough compared to the (tough) competition.
Root, albeit handicapping himself for the first 2-thirds or 3-quarters of his career with his crappy conversion rates, has squeaked ahead of Kane IMO, due to better performances against more of the better teams and away from home.
But, if we are talking all 3 formats, and not just tests. Then Kohli re-enters that chat due to his crazy good record across the 3 for a long period of time.
Yet Root is yet to hit a century in Australia after 14 tests and Kane has 2 in Australia in only 7 tests. For the last decade (since start of 2015), Kane averages 63, Root around 50 - that's a pretty big gap. Kane has been hamstrung by 2-3 test series and infrequent series against "top" teams and his home stats are a lot better than his away stats. But Root never took the number 3 spot that England needed him to take for his whole career leaving a whole series of players to sacrifice themselves there.
-
For the record I think Kallis is in the conversation for greatest all rounder, but not greatest cricketer, his bowling wasn't good enough and his batting while excellent wasn't above his peers (like Ponting in his prime etc)
@No-Quarter said in Other Cricket:
For the record I think Kallis is in the conversation for greatest all rounder, but not greatest cricketer, his bowling wasn't good enough and his batting while excellent wasn't above his peers (like Ponting in his prime etc)
Being the best ever isn't just about numbers and that's where Kallis falls down, as does a guy like Sangakkara. Great players both but they haven't left a mark on global cricket.
Putting Bradman aside, that's Warne's claim to the title. And Kohli as well. It's how they captured their nation and then the wider world, both on and off the field.
We'll be talking about Warney far longer than we ever will about Kallis. And that's greatness beyond numbers.
-
@No-Quarter said in Other Cricket:
Murali was a batter spinner than Warne
(just tagging @NTA so he sees this)
What's a "batter spinner"?
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
@No-Quarter said in Other Cricket:
Murali was a batter spinner than Warne
(just tagging @NTA so he sees this)
What's a "batter spinner"?
probably the same as spinning batter
