Stephen Fleming is the worst ever

[Scallywag]

I think that most people would have to agree that Flemming is much better than his average implies. He has improved significantly in recent years.

No I think flemings ave is a good indication of how good he is,

 

[cbuts]

no i dont. and i believe that an career average is usaully a poor indacator. flem is the best case for this, last 3 years a test average of in the 50's and same with odi's

 

[Richard]

They probably would have adapted to the conditions if they were to play half their cricket in those conditions , and come out just as good .

It doesn't matter how much you play in conditions, there are some conditions (for instance those used for the last India tour of New Zealand) in which RUDs will come along so regularly it is impossible to score very heavily.

 

[Richard]

You need to wonder what Tendulkar's average would be if he played in NZ conditions, and Flemming's in Indian conditions. Not that I am saying Flemming is as good as Tendulkar. The entire Indian top order averages far higher than that of NZ but they were made to look ridiculous on their last tour of NZ.

Those conditions were extreme by any standards.
Any batsmen would have been made to look ridiculous against half-decent bowling in those conditions.

 

[Tim]

The FC pitches in NZ are extremely substandard, and i mean extremely.
Places like Gisborne, New Plymouth, Hamilton etc are notoriously bad for batting. Its no wonder most medium pace bowlers average around 19 or 20 & the batsmen only average around 30 to 35.

 

[Nate]

i dont believe flemings average indicates how good he is... he has improved a great deal lately. just a pity bout his nervous ninetys.

 

[Mingster]

Jeez Tim, I think you are being a bit generous with that comment on batting averages around 30-35! More than 25-30 if you ask me in the OD arena!

 

[Dick Rockett]

Those conditions were extreme by any standards.
Any batsmen would have been made to look ridiculous against half-decent bowling in those conditions.

Except Richardson.

You've still got to put the ball in the right place. As it stood, seven games out of nine on that tour NZ scored more runs than India.

 

[Richard]

Yes, I know that, but mostly the New Zealand batsmen were made to look ridiculous every bit as much as the Indians.
Their inability to dismiss Richardson effectively decided that Test-series.
What I was trying to say was if you got normal New Zealand conditions neither set of batsmen would be made to look ridiculous.

 

[Tim]

The fact that you call Richardson a flat-track bully Richard interests me when you've just pointed out that Richardson was the key to that Indian series on a couple of extremely green pitches.

 

[Nate]

richardson did some amazing things for that kiwi team... like batting for instance

 

[Dick Rockett]

mostly the New Zealand batsmen were made to look ridiculous every bit as much as the Indians.
Their inability to dismiss Richardson effectively decided that Test-series.
What I was trying to say was if you got normal New Zealand conditions neither set of batsmen would be made to look ridiculous.

I don't think ridiculous is the right word, but essentially you're correct. I think if anything that series made the bowlers look good rather than the batsmen ridiculous, if you know what I mean. That said, you can't just waltz up to the crease and expect wickets on a greentop. You still have to put the ball on the spot, and the Kiwis did that way better than the Indians.

Richardson showed what could be achieved if you show some patience and concentration, and some hotshot batsmen on both sides thought they knew better.

 

[Richard]

Don't think they thought they knew better, I just think they are capable of playing only one way and that way will get you into big trouble on wickets like that.
Yes, of course you still have to put the ball in the right place, yes the Kiwis did that better than the Indians and full credit to them for doing so and they deserved the series victory, but the "ridiculous" thing was simply pointing-out to Will Scarlet that it's not as if it was the case that the Indians were made to look ridiculous by typical Kiwi conditions, more the case that, against decent bowling, no batsman stood a chance in conditions extreme by even Kiwi standards.

 

[Richard]

The fact that you call Richardson a flat-track bully Richard interests me when you've just pointed out that Richardson was the key to that Indian series on a couple of extremely green pitches.

Yes, that's the one instance when Richardson has actually scored well in conditions that have favoured seam and swing.
I've said that before.

 

[Langeveldt]

No I think flemings ave is a good indication of how good he is,

Ditto every player, ever...

You cant be good without performing.. There is the difference between potential and quality....

 

[Macka]

Fleming's average is a good indication of the early part of his career. If you look at his ODI and test average over the past 18 months you'll see a huge difference. His convertion rate has gotten a lot better, and he has made some big scores.

Richardson has scored well everywhere. Seaming, swinging, spining, you name it. You can't deny his ability. Oh and he is hardly a flat track bully.

Some of the Indian batsman were made to look stupid, like Ganguly. Others like Sehwag/Dravid played quite well.

 

[Richard]

What a surprise, the one everyone loves to hate was the one who was made to look ridiculous, and the one everyone now loves to overrate, in Tests, played quite well, despite averaging about 10.
Fine Dravid is a likeable guy and he did his best, but still he wasn't outstanding.