John Wright ODI record?

[Fiery]

Run-rates were way slower, sure, but if you're a good batsman (top-order batsman at least) you can still average in the high 30s, 40s.

I'm not one for using arbitary cut-off points, you know this, but 35 is a decent "general" number that you look to aim roughly for. For someone with a career average below this, you need something else to have been considered all that much shake.

These days you might be able to apply your "35 rule" to a certain extent but not back then. And you certainly wouldn't consider batsmen with average between 25 and 35 as "poor"

 

[Richard]

So, basically, Stephen Fleming, Scott Styris, Chris Cairns etc. are poor batsmen in ODI cricket?

Fleming should have been a damn sight better but has wasted his best years at the top of the order - would likely have had his average up at 35 or very possibly more had he been batting three or four the last 6 years.

Styris was crap for a long time and has been good for the last 6 years or so - averages 37 or sumate like that in that time.

And Cairns wasn't any shakes purely as a batsman - didn't touch Roger Twose - but there was always more to his game than batting. I also always thought he should have done more - he sometimes seemed to care more about playing shots than scoring runs, something Craig McMillan suffers criminally from.

 

[Fiery]

And Cairns wasn't any shakes purely as a batsman -.

Frankly, that's bollocks. Cairns on his day was as good as anyone in the world

 

[Athlai]

That sort of record actually wasn't too bad in those days, believe it or not (well...for a kiwi anyway). Wright was always an automatic selection in both formats at the time tbh

 

[Fiery]

What are you surprised at...the admission?

 

[Athlai]

What are you surprised at...the admission?

Phlegms going to faint when he see's your back.

 

[NZTailender]

Adam Parore, Chris Harris, Chris Cairns, Mark Greatbatch, Lou Vincent, Jacob Oram, Brendon McCullum & Craig McMillan all average/averaged under 30 at ODI level but were still are/were effective for NZ.

 

[Fiery]

Phlegms going to faint when he see's your back.

I bet he loves his new nickname

 

[Flem274*]

I bet he loves his new nickname

Haha you've been back 5 minutes and you're already in an argument with Richard.

Heath made my new nickname for me a while ago now.

Welcome back mate, we've missed you. Earlier we considered egging your house if you didn't come back, (well I did actualy, don't think anyone else thought it was a good idea) but Dontcloseyoureyes would rather you died in a house fire. Oh and Lillian Thomson, months after your ban asked where you were. Thats the Fiery news.

And if you call Fleming a dire ODI batsmen I heap you in with the same brain functions as Doug Golightly. in other words, you're catatonic.

 

[Fiery]

Haha you've been back 5 minutes and you're already in an argument with Richard.

Heath made my new nickname for me a while ago now.

Welcome back mate, we've missed you. Earlier we considered egging your house if you didn't come back, (well I did actualy, don't think anyone else thought it was a good idea) but Dontcloseyoureyes would rather you died in a house fire. Oh and Lillian Thomson, months after your ban asked where you were. Thats the Fiery news.

And if you call Fleming a dire ODI batsmen I heap you in with the same brain functions as Doug Golightly. in other words, you're catatonic.

Cheers mate. I have never called Flem a dire batsman and never would but according to Richard's theory he is "poor"

 

[iamdavid]

Sorry, you don't average less than 35 or so and be anything other in my books..

Ahem , ...... , .......

 

[shortpitched713]

You can't use a bloody simple average as an indicator of a batsman in ODI cricket. Just as ER is a very important factor in rating bowlers, ones strike rate is a very important factor when it comes to rating batsmen. Sanath's strike rate is clearly high enough to compensate for his relatively low average.

 

[Fiery]

Ahem , ...... , .......

Prime examples

 

[Flem274*]

So you're saying that Michael Papps, with an average of 51 in ODI's, is better than Jayasuria, De Silva and Astle based on a simple average? I certainly know who I would rather pick.

 

[Prince EWS]

So you're saying that Michael Papps, with an average of 51 in ODI's, is better than Jayasuria, De Silva and Astle based on a simple average? I certainly know who I would rather pick.

Papps hasn't played enough games for that to be a true reflection though.

 

[Jono]

Prime examples

Particularly since Aravinda DeSilva is one of Richard's favourite batsman ever. In fact IIRC it may be his favourite.

 

[Perm]

You can't judge a player solely on averages, but they usually give you a decent idea. In the case of Jayasuriya, you have to take into account his Strike Rate to fully understand how good he was as an ODI batsman.

 

[Fiery]

You can't judge a player solely on averages, but they usually give you a decent idea. In the case of Jayasuriya, you have to take into account his Strike Rate to fully understand how good he was as an ODI batsman.

is

 

[NUFAN]

Particularly since Aravinda DeSilva is one of Richard's favourite batsman ever. In fact IIRC it may be his favourite.

35 is pretty high.

Aussie batsmen need to average 35 plus and have strike rate around 80 to be good enough to keep a spot in the batting lineup..

 

[Athlai]

You can't judge a player solely on averages, but they usually give you a decent idea. In the case of Jayasuriya, you have to take into account his Strike Rate to fully understand how good he was as an ODI batsman.

Richard would argue he was a poor batsman to begin with TBH.

After 1995 he's averaged 35+ more a case in that this guy has been playing cricket as long as I've been alive than anything else.