so who was better in odi's?
so who was better in odi's?
Tough one, actually. Instinctively I'd take the Surrey man as he was obviously a notch or two up in terms of quality, but both were very similar sort of players.
Interestingly (or perhaps not) but for all the talk of Vaughan being a failure as an ODI player because he never made a ton in the format, Thorpe never even made a 90.
Cricket Web's current Premier League Tipping Champion
- As featured in The Independent.
"I don't think that they'll come close to us to be honest."
- Steve Smith before the Ashes
I think Vaughan never making a ton would have been fine if he had a half-decent average, Thorpe averaged 37 which is not too shabby by our standards
Originally Posted by John King
RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.
Yeah, also Vaughan's an opener and Thorpe a number four. Now, I know the English top order is shabby stuff, but ideally the number four shouldn't have time to make a hundred.
A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett and Benaud
Member of ESAS, JMAS, DMAS, FRAS and RTDAS
when you're winning, you have friends
scores and dozens, real friends
when you're winning, never lonely
when you keep winning
Pietersen has like eight of them
Though he does bat at three now and it turns out he only has 6 tons, 5 scored at 4 or below though. But yeah that reflects more on how poor we've been than anything else.
tough call really, wasn't fairbrother a bit of a one day specalist? then again at times thorpe looked like you could never get him out, then again comin from nz theres not many batsmen we cna get out LOL
Would always take Fairbrother myself, but perhaps that's just because I like ODI specialists. And England (in Knight, Hick and Fairbrother) had three of the very best in the batting genre in the 1990s (though sadly there was no point where they all played together with all in-form - the only time they were in the team together was 1998/99, a time when Knight was in one of those horror troughs).
There really wasn't much between Fairbrother and Thorpe.
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
Fairbrother quite comfortably for mine. Thorpe was good but Fairbrother is a forgotten master of one day batting in a way.
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
Moeen is a perfectly fine bowler FFS
It generally tends to be forgotten how good England ODI batsmen were if they weren't that good at Tests.
Knight, Hick and Fairbrother all suffer for this.
I find it a bit odd that all 3 of them forged fairly good FC careers as well. It seems to be a pattern with most 'ODI specialists' too. Look at Michael Bevan or Chris Harris. Im not exactly sure if it is just coincidence, but it seems strange that most ODI specialists that were so obviously found out at the test match level were such good FC players as well even though the 2 forms are so completely different.
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
As much as I like Thorpe, I have to vote for Fairbrother. He was an amazing ODI batsman...
Well, amazing given that he was from England and yet was so good at ODIs...
We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
A cricket supporter forever
Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.
Check out this awesome e-fed:
Obviously, playing more games won't increase your skill level, but it will allow you to get over bad troughs at domestic level more than someone who maybe started the season with 3, 21, 15, 4 then scored 88 to get back into nick before joining the Test team for the rest of the season would.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)