• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Wow I actually remember this happening!

Blakey

State Vice-Captain
Last stand at the G
Andrew McLean on Melbourne 1987-88


It was a Test that had everything. It was the series when New Zealand revealed the last of its great truly gritty No 3's, Andrew Jones. We lost in Brisbane and Jones was maligned for his technique. His 150 and 64 in Adelaide were an emphatic reply. On to Melbourne where New Zealand batted first and Jones was soon in the action again: "caught" down the leg side by Greg "The Liar" Dyer for 40-odd. John Wright fell for 99. Australia came and went - can't recall what they scored or who got them - and in New Zealand's second dig, Martin Crowe passed 4000 runs in the calendar year, with what media reports of the time called some of the finest batting ever witnessed. However, New Zealand posted only a moderate target which, at tea on the final day, Australia seemingly had under control. That was until Dipak Patel took a brilliant catch at point to dismiss Mike Veletta. Then, the wheels fell off as Richard Hadlee zeroed in on Ian Botham's world record. He was level on 383 Test wickets when Mike Whitney joined Craig McDermott at the crease with just one wicket left. An 11-over spell was too much in the end for Hadlee: he would have to wait until Bangalore the following year to claim the record. Danny Morrison thought though, as did thousands glued to their boxes across the Tasman, that he had McDermott plumb LBW but umpire French disagreed. It was the longest six overs of Whitney's life but an episode that made him a TV star.
 

archie mac

International Coach
Blakey said:
Last stand at the G
Andrew McLean on Melbourne 1987-88


It was a Test that had everything. It was the series when New Zealand revealed the last of its great truly gritty No 3's, Andrew Jones. We lost in Brisbane and Jones was maligned for his technique. His 150 and 64 in Adelaide were an emphatic reply. On to Melbourne where New Zealand batted first and Jones was soon in the action again: "caught" down the leg side by Greg "The Liar" Dyer for 40-odd. John Wright fell for 99. Australia came and went - can't recall what they scored or who got them - and in New Zealand's second dig, Martin Crowe passed 4000 runs in the calendar year, with what media reports of the time called some of the finest batting ever witnessed. However, New Zealand posted only a moderate target which, at tea on the final day, Australia seemingly had under control. That was until Dipak Patel took a brilliant catch at point to dismiss Mike Veletta. Then, the wheels fell off as Richard Hadlee zeroed in on Ian Botham's world record. He was level on 383 Test wickets when Mike Whitney joined Craig McDermott at the crease with just one wicket left. An 11-over spell was too much in the end for Hadlee: he would have to wait until Bangalore the following year to claim the record. Danny Morrison thought though, as did thousands glued to their boxes across the Tasman, that he had McDermott plumb LBW but umpire French disagreed. It was the longest six overs of Whitney's life but an episode that made him a TV star.
I can still see Paddles showing the crowd one finger, he needed one wicket for a record. And Whitney pumping his fist like a boxer at the end.
 
Last edited:

anzac

International Debutant
Blakey said:
Last stand at the G
Andrew McLean on Melbourne 1987-88


It was a Test that had everything. It was the series when New Zealand revealed the last of its great truly gritty No 3's, Andrew Jones. We lost in Brisbane and Jones was maligned for his technique. His 150 and 64 in Adelaide were an emphatic reply.
Ian Chappell took exception to Jones' hopping around on the crease and virtually playing the ball with both feet in the air...............said words to the effect that if Jones was an international batsman with that technique he'd eat his hat.......................he didn't but he did make an on air apology after he (Jones) reached his ton at Adelaide in the 1st innings.

Also noteworthy that Jones made his debut at aged 28....................and IMO provided Crowe with the breathing space to be able to do his thing with the bat................

and that extra 30 mins in the last Test had a ODI atmosphere & proved that Tests could be every bit as exciting as the shorter game - as again proven by the current Ashes series........
 

archie mac

International Coach
I would think Whitney an even worse bat then McGrath, and Hadlee a finer bowler then Harmison, so this performance of Whitney maybe the better effort.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
archie mac said:
I would think Whitney an even worse bat then McGrath, and Hadlee a finer bowler then Harmison, so this performance of Whitney maybe the better effort.
I used to play with Whit and can confirm that he was indeed horrible.

If I had been dismissed by the time he was warming up, I would from time to time bowl to him left handed (I'm right handed naturally) in the nets before he went out to bat. Honours were generally even.
 

sirjeremy11

State Vice-Captain
Blakey said:
Last stand at the G
Andrew McLean on Melbourne 1987-88


It was a Test that had everything. It was the series when New Zealand revealed the last of its great truly gritty No 3's, Andrew Jones. We lost in Brisbane and Jones was maligned for his technique. His 150 and 64 in Adelaide were an emphatic reply. On to Melbourne where New Zealand batted first and Jones was soon in the action again: "caught" down the leg side by Greg "The Liar" Dyer for 40-odd. John Wright fell for 99. Australia came and went - can't recall what they scored or who got them - and in New Zealand's second dig, Martin Crowe passed 4000 runs in the calendar year, with what media reports of the time called some of the finest batting ever witnessed. However, New Zealand posted only a moderate target which, at tea on the final day, Australia seemingly had under control. That was until Dipak Patel took a brilliant catch at point to dismiss Mike Veletta. Then, the wheels fell off as Richard Hadlee zeroed in on Ian Botham's world record. He was level on 383 Test wickets when Mike Whitney joined Craig McDermott at the crease with just one wicket left. An 11-over spell was too much in the end for Hadlee: he would have to wait until Bangalore the following year to claim the record. Danny Morrison thought though, as did thousands glued to their boxes across the Tasman, that he had McDermott plumb LBW but umpire French disagreed. It was the longest six overs of Whitney's life but an episode that made him a TV star.
How dare you! After years of telling me that was Ian Healy not Greg Dyer, you use my own quote to start a thread. I'm onto you.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
anzac said:
and that extra 30 mins in the last Test had a ODI atmosphere & proved that Tests could be every bit as exciting as the shorter game - as again proven by the current Ashes series........
To be fair that's been proven many times - anyone attempting to suggest that either game has something over the other is IMO extremely unwise.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
archie mac said:
I would think Whitney an even worse bat then McGrath, and Hadlee a finer bowler then Harmison, so this performance of Whitney maybe the better effort.
YOU WOULD THINK that Hadlee was better than Harmison?
We're talking about a bowler who's probably in the top 2 - certainly the top 3 (I rate him 2nd only to Malcolm Marshall) - in the last 35 years, and you only "would think" that he's better than a bowler who's proven largely useless at the Test level?
 

sirjeremy11

State Vice-Captain
Richard said:
YOU WOULD THINK that Hadlee was better than Harmison?
We're talking about a bowler who's probably in the top 2 - certainly the top 3 (I rate him 2nd only to Malcolm Marshall) - in the last 35 years, and you only "would think" that he's better than a bowler who's proven largely useless at the Test level?
You would think that Hadlee was just slightly higher rated than Harmison wouldn't you???!!!

Hadlee completely carried our attack in the 80's. Everyone else was just a useful performer around him. But every team needs a strike bowler...
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Hadlee not only carried NZ's attack but, as I say, proved himself IMO the 2nd-best bowler of the modern era, 2nd only to the genius of Malcolm Marshall.
 

sirjeremy11

State Vice-Captain
Richard said:
Hadlee not only carried NZ's attack but, as I say, proved himself IMO the 2nd-best bowler of the modern era, 2nd only to the genius of Malcolm Marshall.
Agreed. I wonder what number Harmison would rate? I think McGrath would be third for me. Then maybe Ambrose. Tough to rank them all though... I think Harmison would be somewhere between 30 and 40 (modern era...)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I think outside the top 100.
Many bowlers have managed a good period of 7 Test-matches.
Incidentally - yes, impossible to rank exactly, but my top 10 would go summat like...
Marshall
Hadlee
Ambrose
Donald
Garner
McGrath
Imran Khan
Lillee
Holding
Pollock
(Note - seamers only)
 
Last edited:

Butterteeth

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Ahhh yes, I remember that series well.

Hadlee was brilliant (and yes, a substantially better bowler than Harmison) - he was bowling too well to get the Whit out - magnificent out swingers and leg cutters. The Whit had no chance of getting close enough for an edge.

And I thought Andrew Jones looked pretty awful too - but he was one of those players who, although not being blessed with a great technique, still managed to score runs through simple application and determination.

Wasn't that also the series where Dean Jones made a bet with Martin Crowe over who would score the most runs? And Deano dudded out? 8-)
 

Butterteeth

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Richard said:
I think outside the top 100.
Many bowlers have managed a good period of 7 Test-matches.
Incidentally - yes, impossible to rank exactly, but my top 10 would go summat like...
Marshall
Hadlee
Ambrose
Donald
Garner
McGrath
Imran Khan
Lillee
Holding
Pollock
(Note - seamers only)
And on the bowlers, well I wouldn't have Donald that high on my list.
Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee, Ambrose and McGrath probably my top 5 in no particular order.
And what about Courtney Walsh?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
What about him?
Walsh was merely a good bowler.
Why wouldn't you have Donald so high? Donald had success everywhere. I know he's a South African and everything, but he's one of the best-liked South Africans you'll see. He even got a job commentating for an English station!
How the blazes can Lillee be considered better than Ambrose and McGrath when he averaged something like 100 in the subcontinent, and Ambrose and McGrath both conquered the place in most countries?
 

Butterteeth

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Richard said:
What about him?
Walsh was merely a good bowler.
Why wouldn't you have Donald so high? Donald had success everywhere. I know he's a South African and everything, but he's one of the best-liked South Africans you'll see. He even got a job commentating for an English station!
How the blazes can Lillee be considered better than Ambrose and McGrath when he averaged something like 100 in the subcontinent, and Ambrose and McGrath both conquered the place in most countries?
Well I did say in no particular order.
For mine Lillee is one of the greats - putting stats aside, there aren't too many bowlers who had such a presence on the field as DK.

And Walsh? Well I'd still have him on my list. I don't think you take 519 test wickets by just being 'good'. And yes I know he played alot of tests, but surely he is more than just 'good'?

With Donald perhaps its a perception thing. He only had moderate success in Australia and I suppose thats where I've seen him in action the most. His stats are certainly pretty impressive.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
I think outside the top 100.
Many bowlers have managed a good period of 7 Test-matches.
Incidentally - yes, impossible to rank exactly, but my top 10 would go summat like...
Marshall
Hadlee
Ambrose
Donald
Garner
McGrath
Imran Khan
Lillee
Holding
Pollock
(Note - seamers only)
i honestly cant see how half of those bowlers can be rated higher than waqar younis, who in his prime was averaging in the teens for more than 6 years. personally id put waqar ahead of all of those bowlers bar marshall.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Butterteeth said:
Well I did say in no particular order.
For mine Lillee is one of the greats - putting stats aside, there aren't too many bowlers who had such a presence on the field as DK.
Whatever "presence" he might've had (along with extremely good bowling) in England, Australia, New Zealand and West Indies, he certainly had absolutely nothing in the subcontinent.
And without success in the subcontinent, no seamer can be regarded as a complete bowler.
And Walsh? Well I'd still have him on my list. I don't think you take 519 test wickets by just being 'good'. And yes I know he played alot of tests, but surely he is more than just 'good'?
Walsh was, by West Indian standards, only very good. It was only right at the end of his career that he was outstanding.
He took more wickets because he played more than most - simple as.
Had Marshall, Roberts, Holding, Garner, Ambrose, Bishop, Clarke, Gray, Croft, Daniel, et al played more they'd very likely have taken as many and more.
It's average and strike-rate that have meaning for bowlers - not number of wickets.
With Donald perhaps its a perception thing. He only had moderate success in Australia and I suppose thats where I've seen him in action the most. His stats are certainly pretty impressive.
Donald had plenty of success against Australia, and everywhere else.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
i honestly cant see how half of those bowlers can be rated higher than waqar younis, who in his prime was averaging in the teens for more than 6 years. personally id put waqar ahead of all of those bowlers bar marshall.
I thought very seriously about putting Waqar in, and I might well have done so had he retired in 1998.
As it is, I reckon that lot were - just - better. Waqar didn't have the stamina to be a great bowler for more than 6 years or so - the others did. Even Donald, who had a very similar style.
 

Top