Graham Thorpe Vs Neil Fairbrother? ODI's only

[Mard]

so who was better in odi's?

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

 

[GIMH]

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

 

[Magrat Garlick]

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.

 

[GIMH]

Pietersen has like eight of them

 

[GIMH]

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.

 

[whitedazzler]

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

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[Prince EWS]

Fairbrother quite comfortably for mine. Thorpe was good but Fairbrother is a forgotten master of one day batting in a way.

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

 

[Craig]

I went for Fairbrother, but had there been the irrelevant 3rd option I would of taken it because well, I had NFI on this one as well.

 

[honestbharani]

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...

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Neil Fairbrother.

 

[Richard]

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.

Possibly impacting - though certainly far from the only factor - is that these players have obviously had a chance to play far more domestic FC cricket without Test careers stopping them.

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.

 

[Prince EWS]

Possibly impacting - though certainly far from the only factor - is that these players have obviously had a chance to play far more domestic FC cricket without Test careers stopping them.

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.

My thoughts on Bevan have been well publicised in another thread and my thoughts on Hick are similar to my thoughts on Sinclair. However, I don't think it would have mattered how secure his spot was, Knight was never going to be Test standard.

 

[Tom Halsey]

IMO, Bevan could have forged a Test career as a batting all-rounder if he'd bothered to work more on his bowling (I also seem to remember an injury as well, not sure). Having watched quite a lot of the Australian 1996/7 summer, he generally bowled well throughout the course of the summer (and on the tour to SA as well) to indicate that the potential was definitely there to be a decent support bowler at Test level IMO.

 

[Richard]

My thoughts on Bevan have been well publicised in another thread and my thoughts on Hick are similar to my thoughts on Sinclair. However, I don't think it would have mattered how secure his spot was, Knight was never going to be Test standard.

No, indeed. I've always compared Hick and Bevan myself. Less sure about Sinclair, but perhaps that's just because he was the opposite of ODI specialist.

Knight and Fairbrother were the same as well - technically, they were simply not up to Test cricket. Unfortunately.

 

[Goocheslamb]

Fairbrother was amazing, though I am not sure why was he in and out of the team. he played for 13 years 1986-99.

 

[Richard]

Fairbrother was a fixture between 1991 and 1995/96, rarely played before 1991 and only played in 1998/99 as a result of complete chance but him playing reminded everyone how good he was and he was back in the side for the next year.

Why on Earth he was dropped after 1995/96 is completely beyond me though. Perhaps it's linked to Hick being - absurdly - dropped from the ODI side at the end of 1996 as well. Selectors - England ones especially - are still poor at decoding the difference between Tests and ODIs and 13 years ago they were diabolical at it.