Other Cricket
-
NZ triple centurions are on odd bunch. Sutcliffe and Turner obviously class. I know bugger all about Roger Blunt. Mark Richardson and Devon Conway, both good, on the cusp of great. But then you have Ken Rutherford, Dean Brownie, Peter Fulton, Michael Papps and now Tom Bruce. All decent players, but none really set the world alight when given the chance at higher honours.
-
NZ triple centurions are on odd bunch. Sutcliffe and Turner obviously class. I know bugger all about Roger Blunt. Mark Richardson and Devon Conway, both good, on the cusp of great. But then you have Ken Rutherford, Dean Brownie, Peter Fulton, Michael Papps and now Tom Bruce. All decent players, but none really set the world alight when given the chance at higher honours.
@Cyclops said in Other Cricket:
NZ triple centurions are on odd bunch. Sutcliffe and Turner obviously class. I know bugger all about Roger Blunt. Mark Richardson and Devon Conway, both good, on the cusp of great. But then you have Ken Rutherford, Dean Brownie, Peter Fulton, Michael Papps and now Tom Bruce. All decent players, but none really set the world alight when given the chance at higher honours.
I'd say the biggest factor there is 4-day FC cricket.
4 of them in the 90 odd years when NZ domestic FC was 3 days. Then 6 in 40 years since it became 4 layers.
Then consider, since about late 90s or 2000 the blackcap schedule that the top batsmen never play Plunket Shield. So it is the more fringe players dominating these fixtures.
Lastly. Quantity of oportunity. Sutcliffe played a Plunket Shield season of only 3 games each. Papps, Brownie etc plated 10 game seasons.
-
NZ triple centurions are on odd bunch. Sutcliffe and Turner obviously class. I know bugger all about Roger Blunt. Mark Richardson and Devon Conway, both good, on the cusp of great. But then you have Ken Rutherford, Dean Brownie, Peter Fulton, Michael Papps and now Tom Bruce. All decent players, but none really set the world alight when given the chance at higher honours.
@Cyclops said in Other Cricket:
NZ triple centurions are on odd bunch. Sutcliffe and Turner obviously class. I know bugger all about Roger Blunt. Mark Richardson and Devon Conway, both good, on the cusp of great. But then you have Ken Rutherford, Dean Brownie, Peter Fulton, Michael Papps and now Tom Bruce. All decent players, but none really set the world alight when given the chance at higher honours.
Tom Bruce has the kind of record that should have got him capped in the longer form by now. What gives ?
A triple ton is still rare as all hell though, only 32 in test history. NONE scored between Lawrence Rowe getting 302 in 1974 until Graham Gooch got 333 in 1990.
It is a massive effort.
-
BLUNT, ROGER CHARLES, who died in London on June 22, aged 65, played in nine Test matches for New Zealand between 1929 and 1931, seven against England and two against South Africa. Beginning his career as a leg-break bowler, he developed into a very fine batsman. Against A. H. H. Gilligan's England team in New Zealand in 1929, he headed his country's Test bowling averages with nine wickets for 19 runs each. In the opening Test of that tour, which marked the entry of New Zealand into the top rank of cricket, he not only gained a match analysis of five wickets for 34 runs but, with 45 not out, was top scorer in first innings of 112.
In England in 1931, his 96 helped New Zealand to a highly creditable draw with England at Lord's after being 230 in arrears on the first innings. Until B. Sutcliffe surpassed his 7,769 runs in 1953, he was the highest-scoring New Zealand batsman in first-class cricket. In a dazzling display for Otago against Canterbury at Christchurch in 1931-32, he hit 338 not out, then the highest score ever achieved by a New Zealand cricketer, though Sutcliffe many years later made 355 and 385. Well-known in business circles in England and New Zealand, he was awarded the M.B.E. in 1965.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/roger-blunt-155462
Seems a handy player. I wouldn't put Rigor or Conway anywhere near great.
-
-
BLUNT, ROGER CHARLES, who died in London on June 22, aged 65, played in nine Test matches for New Zealand between 1929 and 1931, seven against England and two against South Africa. Beginning his career as a leg-break bowler, he developed into a very fine batsman. Against A. H. H. Gilligan's England team in New Zealand in 1929, he headed his country's Test bowling averages with nine wickets for 19 runs each. In the opening Test of that tour, which marked the entry of New Zealand into the top rank of cricket, he not only gained a match analysis of five wickets for 34 runs but, with 45 not out, was top scorer in first innings of 112.
In England in 1931, his 96 helped New Zealand to a highly creditable draw with England at Lord's after being 230 in arrears on the first innings. Until B. Sutcliffe surpassed his 7,769 runs in 1953, he was the highest-scoring New Zealand batsman in first-class cricket. In a dazzling display for Otago against Canterbury at Christchurch in 1931-32, he hit 338 not out, then the highest score ever achieved by a New Zealand cricketer, though Sutcliffe many years later made 355 and 385. Well-known in business circles in England and New Zealand, he was awarded the M.B.E. in 1965.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/roger-blunt-155462
Seems a handy player. I wouldn't put Rigor or Conway anywhere near great.
@dogmeat said in Other Cricket:
BLUNT, ROGER CHARLES, who died in London on June 22, aged 65, played in nine Test matches for New Zealand between 1929 and 1931, seven against England and two against South Africa. Beginning his career as a leg-break bowler, he developed into a very fine batsman. Against A. H. H. Gilligan's England team in New Zealand in 1929, he headed his country's Test bowling averages with nine wickets for 19 runs each. In the opening Test of that tour, which marked the entry of New Zealand into the top rank of cricket, he not only gained a match analysis of five wickets for 34 runs but, with 45 not out, was top scorer in first innings of 112.
In England in 1931, his 96 helped New Zealand to a highly creditable draw with England at Lord's after being 230 in arrears on the first innings. Until B. Sutcliffe surpassed his 7,769 runs in 1953, he was the highest-scoring New Zealand batsman in first-class cricket. In a dazzling display for Otago against Canterbury at Christchurch in 1931-32, he hit 338 not out, then the highest score ever achieved by a New Zealand cricketer, though Sutcliffe many years later made 355 and 385. Well-known in business circles in England and New Zealand, he was awarded the M.B.E. in 1965.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/roger-blunt-155462
Seems a handy player. I wouldn't put Rigor or Conway anywhere near great.
Any NZ batsman averaging over 40 is in the discussion, particularly given he was an opener.
Tom Latham has probaably gotten himself out of the discussion for an all time XI of late ( I'd go Turner and Sutcliffe with Wright getting an honourable mention ) but Rigor it must be said had an excellent record.
Conway obviously had a fantastic start but has petered off of late.
-
@Cyclops said in Other Cricket:
NZ triple centurions are on odd bunch. Sutcliffe and Turner obviously class. I know bugger all about Roger Blunt. Mark Richardson and Devon Conway, both good, on the cusp of great. But then you have Ken Rutherford, Dean Brownie, Peter Fulton, Michael Papps and now Tom Bruce. All decent players, but none really set the world alight when given the chance at higher honours.
Tom Bruce has the kind of record that should have got him capped in the longer form by now. What gives ?
A triple ton is still rare as all hell though, only 32 in test history. NONE scored between Lawrence Rowe getting 302 in 1974 until Graham Gooch got 333 in 1990.
It is a massive effort.
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Tom Bruce has the kind of record that should have got him capped in the longer form by now. What gives ?
There just haven't been the batting spaces opening up in the test 11.
Initially in his career Bruce was batting too low in FC cricket for CD to be properly considered in his early years, he needed to stretch and bat 3 or 4 at FC level to be, but he was batting 5 or 6.
During Bruce's FC span. A test middle order position has opened up only 3 times.
When Nicholls replaced Baz at number 5. At that stage Bruce had played 2 FC season and had a good record. but was batting low in the order and had a poor hundreds to 50s ratio. Nicholls and Young were the serious contenders for that spot at that time.
Bruce then didn't score a FC century for the next 4 seasons. At the end of that 4 years was the next time a place in the test 11 came up for grabs when Taylor retired and Mitchell took the spot.
The next time a post came up for grabs was when Ravindra replaced Nicholls. At that stage Bruce had a better FC record than Ravindra, but Rachin had the ODIs and had always been rated. Also Nicholls and Bruce are basically exactly the same age, at a time when the entire blackcaps test 11 were over 30.
It will be a record that in hindsight looks like a 'how did this never play a test?' but at the time he was ever really that close. Due to competition from others, a settled test 11, and Bruce himself not nailing his white ball opportunities or NZ A opportunities at times when his competitors did.
-
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
Form is temporary, class is permanent:
DRS must have been working overtime
-
NZ triple centurions are on odd bunch. Sutcliffe and Turner obviously class. I know bugger all about Roger Blunt. Mark Richardson and Devon Conway, both good, on the cusp of great. But then you have Ken Rutherford, Dean Brownie, Peter Fulton, Michael Papps and now Tom Bruce. All decent players, but none really set the world alight when given the chance at higher honours.
@Cyclops said in Other Cricket:
NZ triple centurions are on odd bunch. Sutcliffe and Turner obviously class. I know bugger all about Roger Blunt. Mark Richardson and Devon Conway, both good, on the cusp of great. But then you have Ken Rutherford, Dean Brownie, Peter Fulton, Michael Papps and now Tom Bruce. All decent players, but none really set the world alight when given the chance at higher honours.
Rutherford's triple ton was a little on the farcical side. Yes, it was a first-class game, but only thanks to the vagaries of how random games in the UK are accorded first-class status. While the D.B (Brian) Close XI was arguably strong with Miandad, Boycott and a few other internationals, it was very much a festival game on the 1986 tour of England. Ruds was hungover and probably still partially steamed after Willie Watson's 21st pissup the night before.
https://tinglingcatch.blogspot.com/2013/05/ken-rutherfords-317_12.html?m=1
-
@KiwiPie said in Other Cricket:
Bert Sutcliffe's 385 really is a crazy scorecard
Crikey. Has there ever been a case when a single batsman has scored more than three times what his teammates got combined ?
In another quirk he isn’t even the best batsman who ever lived who was called Bert Sutcliffe…..
https://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketers/herbert-sutcliffe-20413
This guy got a triple ton as well, plus a shitload of other runs.
-
There is also Reid's 296 which was the first class record for sixes in an innings for decades. 230 in boundaries.
@KiwiPie said in Other Cricket:
There is also Reid's 296 which was the first class record for sixes in an innings for decades. 230 in boundaries.
My old history teacher Wilf Haskell there with an unfortunate duck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilf_Haskell
Apparently he holds the record for the biggest six ever hit at the Basin though.
( he may have embellished this himself somewhat......)
It was pretty cool to look up an almanack and see his details and realise his cricket yarns weren't all complete bullshit though !
-
If you were to pick an all time fast scoring NZ ODI XI it would be this - using the highest strike rate in each position in the batting order (min 10 innings in that position). 3 wicket keepers to choose from and bowling from Boult, Southee, Adams, Anderson, Michael Bracewell, Ravindra. Slowest scorers in brackets.
Ravindra 110.73 (Howarth 45.84)
Munro 108.20 (Edgar 49.66)
B. McCullum 85.28 (Sinclair 56.39)
Mitchell 95.54 (Reid 50.93)
Anderson 134.31 (Burgess 56.25)
Ronchi 123.57 (Vincent 53.56)
M Bracewell 123.52 (Harris 66.98)
Smith 111.40 (Larsen 54.63)
Adams 122.04 (Pringle 57.53)
Southee 103.03 (Morrison 43.37)
Boult 78.22 (O'Connor 27.84) -
If you were to pick an all time fast scoring NZ ODI XI it would be this - using the highest strike rate in each position in the batting order (min 10 innings in that position). 3 wicket keepers to choose from and bowling from Boult, Southee, Adams, Anderson, Michael Bracewell, Ravindra. Slowest scorers in brackets.
Ravindra 110.73 (Howarth 45.84)
Munro 108.20 (Edgar 49.66)
B. McCullum 85.28 (Sinclair 56.39)
Mitchell 95.54 (Reid 50.93)
Anderson 134.31 (Burgess 56.25)
Ronchi 123.57 (Vincent 53.56)
M Bracewell 123.52 (Harris 66.98)
Smith 111.40 (Larsen 54.63)
Adams 122.04 (Pringle 57.53)
Southee 103.03 (Morrison 43.37)
Boult 78.22 (O'Connor 27.84) -
@KiwiPie looks like they'll either get 450, or be rolled for under a hundy.
Andre Adams was criminally underused by NZ. Not sure why - personality clashes?
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
@KiwiPie looks like they'll either get 450, or be rolled for under a hundy.
Andre Adams was criminally underused by NZ. Not sure why - personality clashes?
From his Wiki page
Adams debuted at the highest level for New Zealand in March 2002, but a bout of back injuries on the West Indies tour of 2002 allowed Jacob Oram to move ahead of him in the pecking order, limiting him to one Test. Following that, question marks were raised about his attitude.and
However, this was overshadowed by his one-month suspension for grabbing and shaking the helmet of Central Districts batsman Bevan Griggs.
(presumably it was his batting helmet ....)He would have made a fortune playing the T20 leagues in the Chris Jordan role if he had been 10 years younger.
-
If you were to pick an all time fast scoring NZ ODI XI it would be this - using the highest strike rate in each position in the batting order (min 10 innings in that position). 3 wicket keepers to choose from and bowling from Boult, Southee, Adams, Anderson, Michael Bracewell, Ravindra. Slowest scorers in brackets.
Ravindra 110.73 (Howarth 45.84)
Munro 108.20 (Edgar 49.66)
B. McCullum 85.28 (Sinclair 56.39)
Mitchell 95.54 (Reid 50.93)
Anderson 134.31 (Burgess 56.25)
Ronchi 123.57 (Vincent 53.56)
M Bracewell 123.52 (Harris 66.98)
Smith 111.40 (Larsen 54.63)
Adams 122.04 (Pringle 57.53)
Southee 103.03 (Morrison 43.37)
Boult 78.22 (O'Connor 27.84)@KiwiPie said in Other Cricket:
If you were to pick an all time fast scoring NZ ODI XI it would be this - using the highest strike rate in each position in the batting order (min 10 innings in that position). 3 wicket keepers to choose from and bowling from Boult, Southee, Adams, Anderson, Michael Bracewell, Ravindra. Slowest scorers in brackets.
Ravindra 110.73 (Howarth 45.84)
Munro 108.20 (Edgar 49.66)
B. McCullum 85.28 (Sinclair 56.39)
Mitchell 95.54 (Reid 50.93)
Anderson 134.31 (Burgess 56.25)
Ronchi 123.57 (Vincent 53.56)
M Bracewell 123.52 (Harris 66.98)
Smith 111.40 (Larsen 54.63)
Adams 122.04 (Pringle 57.53)
Southee 103.03 (Morrison 43.37)
Boult 78.22 (O'Connor 27.84)Jeez, not often McCullum's the plodder that everyone else bats around.
