@No-Quarter said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
Oram was a class act in tests, could have been right up there if he wasn't constantly injured
I remember going to EP and watching Cairns and Oram each get test tons on the same day vs the jaaps iirc. Brilliant
@Godder said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
This is a list of all test players with at least 1000 runs and 75 wickets in order of difference between batting and bowling average. Apparently, our third best all rounder on that stat is Oram...
Mate I want some of what you were on last night.
Oram doesn't even appear on the stat list you linked. Which is hardly surprising as he doesn't qualify having only taken 60 test wickets....
Hadlee and Cairns #1 and 2 are the only two Kiwi's with a positive differential Reid is next at -0.07 then Vettori. Only other Kiwis to appear are Bracewell and Dipak Patel. Three genuine allrounders one who fashioned himself into one and a couple of guys who hung around long enough to qualify.
Which is pretty much the overall makeup of the list
@Godder said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
This is a list of all test players with at least 1000 runs and 75 wickets in order of difference between batting and bowling average. Apparently, our third best all rounder on that stat is Oram...
geez how good was G A Faulkner ?
@MN5 pretty bloody good.
The cricinfo profile is from E.W. Swanton and shows just how much our language and society has changed in the (guessing) 90 odd years since it was first written.
"Aubrey" sounds very much the archetype Edwardian gentleman despite being a Saffa.
During the European War he served with distinction with the R.F.A. in Salonika, Egypt and Palestine, gaining the D.S.O. in 1918 and the Order of the Nile.
Afflicted by melancholia, he died tragically by his own hand.
@dogmeat said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
@MN5 pretty bloody good.
The cricinfo profile is from E.W. Swanton and shows just how much our language and society has changed in the (guessing) 90 odd years since it was first written.
"Aubrey" sounds very much the archetype Edwardian gentleman despite being a Saffa.
During the European War he served with distinction with the R.F.A. in Salonika, Egypt and Palestine, gaining the D.S.O. in 1918 and the Order of the Nile.
Afflicted by melancholia, he died tragically by his own hand.
just surprised I'd never heard of him...
S Waugh was a useful bowler too. Easy to forget but this high on an all rounders list ? I never knew Hammond was decent as well. Kapil Dev well down the list for one of the greats too.
Paddles and Cairns right beside each other interestingly enough which would at casual glance suggest they're comparable which of course they're not.
Shakib Al Hassan and Jason Holder will fight it out for number one in the coming years you'd think.
@dogmeat said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
@Godder said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
This is a list of all test players with at least 1000 runs and 75 wickets in order of difference between batting and bowling average. Apparently, our third best all rounder on that stat is Oram...
Mate I want some of what you were on last night.
Oram doesn't even appear on the stat list you linked. Which is hardly surprising as he doesn't qualify having only taken 60 test wickets....
Hadlee and Cairns #1 and 2 are the only two Kiwi's with a positive differential Reid is next at -0.07 then Vettori. Only other Kiwis to appear are Bracewell and Dipak Patel. Three genuine allrounders one who fashioned himself into one and a couple of guys who hung around long enough to qualify.
Which is pretty much the overall makeup of the list
Whoops, was looking at multiple lists along the same lines but changing the parameters, and Oram was on the NZ list I originally started with. If the wickets are low enough (without being >0), Kane has our biggest differential.
@MN5 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
@dogmeat said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
@MN5 pretty bloody good.
S Waugh was a useful bowler too. Easy to forget but this high on an all rounders list ?
Steve Waugh perhaps has the position that maybe Ian Botham could have had.
First half of Steve's career he bowled a lot and a handy but not brilliant batsman. I'd imagine only a few runs between his batting and bowling averages for much of that time.
Second half he was very much a part time bowler and became a batting rock. Accelerated his batting average, without damaging his bowling average.
Sobers is further ahead of Kallis than this looks. I'd love to see Sobers bowling averages based on whether he was bowling fast medium or spin - and for when he was bowling LA orthodox or wrist spin.
Yeah the averages difference measure favours the guys who were average bowlers but all time great batsmen. Compare Kallis or Waugh with Hadlee. I'd say Hadlee was at least as good a bowler, if not better than those two were batsmen, and likewise I think he'd offer about as much with the bat as those two with the ball. Yet he's barely breaking even and they're plus 30 almost.
@Cyclops said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
Yeah the averages difference measure favours the guys who were average bowlers but all time great batsmen. Compare Kallis or Waugh with Hadlee. I'd say Hadlee was at least as good a bowler, if not better than those two were batsmen, and likewise I think he'd offer about as much with the bat as those two with the ball. Yet he's barely breaking even and they're plus 30 almost.
This measure hugely favours batsmen who did ok as bowlers then gave up or only chipped in when it suited. No way do Hammond and S Waugh deserve to be there, they're legends based on their batting alone, not as all rounders.
Have a look at Stephen Fleming's efforts as a test bowler ( not one over in 111 tests ) Probably about as good as Chris Martin was at batting but the difference being Martin HAD to bat quite often. No option to opt out cos he was shit.....
IMO number 2 in the test rankings means less than nothing . I am a big fan of the saying "to be the best you have to beat the best " and until we can play and actually win against India , Australia , South Africa and even England we are always going to be just an average team who gets put in our place every time we play one of the top teams .
As for all rounders , that table should be renamed Batting All Rounders , as the comparisons are so biased towards batsmen who bowled a bit .
@Cactus-Jack absolutely disagree with that. India are ahead of the pack right now but we are right up there with SA, Aus and England. SA lost to bloody Sri Lanka at home, which is not a result we would stomach right now, and England are full of ODI and T20 specialists. We just don't get the chance to play those teams enough.
@No-Quarter you mean England who lost to WI and Soith Africa who lost to Srilanka....
@No-Quarter said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
@Cactus-Jack absolutely disagree with that. India are ahead of the pack right now but we are right up there with SA, Aus and England. SA lost to bloody Sri Lanka at home, which is not a result we would stomach right now, and England are full of ODI and T20 specialists. We just don't get the chance to play those teams enough.
Part of that is NZC's fault thought. We deserve to be punished for not having a full test cricket programme. Until we can beat the top teams home and away then I don't see why our achievements should garner much respect. I'm enjoying having a good team but it would only take a few series for attitudes to change markedly.
@hydro11 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
@No-Quarter said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
@Cactus-Jack absolutely disagree with that. India are ahead of the pack right now but we are right up there with SA, Aus and England. SA lost to bloody Sri Lanka at home, which is not a result we would stomach right now, and England are full of ODI and T20 specialists. We just don't get the chance to play those teams enough.
Part of that is NZC's fault thought. We deserve to be punished for not having a full test cricket programme. Until we can beat the top teams home and away then I don't see why our achievements should garner much respect. I'm enjoying having a good team but it would only take a few series for attitudes to change markedly.
Dunno if that's our fault. The holy trinity of India, Aus and England run world cricket now don't they?
@MajorRage said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
@hydro11 said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
@No-Quarter said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
@Cactus-Jack absolutely disagree with that. India are ahead of the pack right now but we are right up there with SA, Aus and England. SA lost to bloody Sri Lanka at home, which is not a result we would stomach right now, and England are full of ODI and T20 specialists. We just don't get the chance to play those teams enough.
Part of that is NZC's fault thought. We deserve to be punished for not having a full test cricket programme. Until we can beat the top teams home and away then I don't see why our achievements should garner much respect. I'm enjoying having a good team but it would only take a few series for attitudes to change markedly.
Dunno if that's our fault. The holy trinity of India, Aus and England run world cricket now don't they?
Sure it's our fault. NZC have come out and said they generally don't want more than 4 home tests each summer. England have 7 as a baseline.
We will find out if we really deserve being number two over the next year:
Sri Lanka Away
England Home
Australia Away
India Home
At the moment I'd tend to agree with Cactus Jack as we failed to beat Australia or South Africa. Although he seems to have forgotten that we did actually beat England last year.
KW up to nuber 2 in the latest test batsman rankings. Probably a good chance to try and compare some of those arguments about where this side really sits.
Raval (33)
Latham (11)
Williamson (2)
Taylor (24)
Nicholls (7)
Wagner (133)
Watling (31)
CDG (60)
India with 1 and 3 and SA with 8,9,10 are they only other team with more than one current players in the top 10 (Smith and Warner don't count)
Boult (8)
Southee(9)
Wagner (11)
CDG (47)
Astle (104)
@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
KW up to nuber 2 in the latest test batsman rankings. Probably a good chance to try and compare some of those arguments about where this side really sits.
Raval (33)
Latham (11)
Williamson (2)
Taylor (24)
Nicholls (7)
Wagner (133)
Watling (31)
CDG (60)India with 1 and 3 and SA with 8,9,10 are they only other team with more than one current players in the top 10 (Smith and Warner don't count)
Boult (8)
Southee(9)
Wagner (11)
CDG (47)
Astle (104)
Tim Southee and Colin de Grandhomme also rank 10 and 15 respectively on the all-rounder rankings (although Pat Cummins is 6 and Mitchell Starc 9 so I'm a bit dubious about what they measure exactly).
@No-Quarter When we beat them we are better than them . Until that happens we are just a team that chokes whenever these teams are put in front of us .
@Cyclops said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
@Crucial said in New Zealand rise to No. 2 in Test rankings for the first time:
KW up to nuber 2 in the latest test batsman rankings. Probably a good chance to try and compare some of those arguments about where this side really sits.
Raval (33)
Latham (11)
Williamson (2)
Taylor (24)
Nicholls (7)
Wagner (133)
Watling (31)
CDG (60)India with 1 and 3 and SA with 8,9,10 are they only other team with more than one current players in the top 10 (Smith and Warner don't count)
Boult (8)
Southee(9)
Wagner (11)
CDG (47)
Astle (104)Tim Southee and Colin de Grandhomme also rank 10 and 15 respectively on the all-rounder rankings (although Pat Cummins is 6 and Mitchell Starc 9 so I'm a bit dubious about what they measure exactly).
Smashing a chaotic and very occasional half century ( five in 64 tests ) gets you to number 10 ?!?!?!
Dubious is being kind.....
I'm assuming the list is topped but Al Hasan, Holder, Stokes etc ?
