Cricinfo Best Test 11 from last 25 years

[TheJediBrah]

Batting up the order is flat out tougher though. In theory, that would more than compensate for any gain in average due to not batting in declaration situations that often.

That's purely speculative

 

[Bolo]

Rich claim when Andy Flower was playing ODis since 1992, and Tests since 1993. Very much like the myth that Warne revived legspin.

I'm not saying Gilchrist was the first keeper bat. There have always been examples. Walcott, Dennis Lindsay, etc. I'm saying that Gilchrist pioneered the idea that it was a necessity. Pre Gilchrist it was an anomaly. After him it was a staple. Flower may possibly have contributed as well, but it was the visibility of Gilchrist that really made it a thing.

With you 1000% on your Warne example.

 

[Daemon]

That's why it's not a simple comparison. Different roles, different advantages and disadvantages. I have little doubt that Gilchrist would have averaged quite a bit more if he batted a few spots higher in the order. The guy threw his wicket away with declaration batting almost every second game, and most of his best innings were actually with the team in trouble (which did happen), coming in at 5/150, 5/200 etc.

If you're batting 7 of course your best innings come when your team is down a bunch of wickets early.

Gilchrist also batted in the easy 2000s while Flower spent most of his career in the 90s. During the period where their career overlaps Flower averages 63.

I don't really have an opinion either way since I never saw Flower bat. Based purely on stats though he seems like the better pure batsman.

 

[trundler]

Gilchrist would have had it harder up the order. Let's not forget he had a glaring weakness i.e around the wicket at off-stump, cramping him for room. Flower had it all, IMO.

 

[trundler]

That's purely speculative

Not really. Batting in the top-order is obviously far more difficult. Fresh wicket, new ball, charged up attack, etc. Openers who average over 50+ are an anomaly for a reason. Now Flower wasn't an opener but he batted higher up the order than Gilchrist. Gilchrist's RPI is 40. Definitely helped by not-outs.

 

[Burgey]

Kim Hughes? Bloke averaged 24 in ODIs. Wasn't anything special in Tests either.

Averaged over 40 until his last series in an era where 40 made you a very good player. Could play, but was shot by 84.

Rod Marsh retired the same year as GC and DK - 83/84. 12 months later Border was made skipper and Hughes left for SA with alderman and rackeman. Boon debuted in 84-85 but was inconsistent. Lawson came home from the 85 Ashes with stress fractures.

His vice captain was andrew hilditch ffs. The all rounder on the 85 tour was O’Donnell. The keeper was Wayne Phillips. Dirk Wellham was in the squad. They had no one.

85-86, with Lawson injured he had the night of Dave Gilbert, Chris Matthews, Tony Dodemaide, Simon Davis and Merv Hughes on debut to call on. Greg Ritchie was in the middle order and Greg Dyer then Tim Zoehrer kept. Dean Jones batted three and was the myth he always was, only younger. Steve Waugh debuted that year and wasn’t ready. The allrounder was Greg Matthews who, tbf, had a great couple of years and was actually a test class batsman, albeit batting seven.

Put simply, it was a horrible, horrible side.

 

[trundler]

2nd Test, Australia tour of West Indies at Port of Spain, Mar 16-21 1984 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

No one else has come close to this level of badass. That side was nothing without Border.

 

[trundler]

Anyway, still haven't figured out the 2 fast bowlers to go with Hadlee and Tayfield in the Surrounded by Imbeciles XI.

 

[Daemon]

Not really. Batting in the top-order is obviously far more difficult. Fresh wicket, new ball, charged up attack, etc. Openers who average over 50+ are an anomaly for a reason. Now Flower wasn't an opener but he batted higher up the order than Gilchrist. Gilchrist's RPI is 40. Definitely helped by not-outs.

Agree with all except the last bit. Gilchrist and Flower have the same number of not outs

 

[trundler]

Gilchrist and Flower have the same number of not outs

Aah, must have missed that. My point about batting higher up still remains.

 

[Bolo]

Anyway, still haven't figured out the 2 fast bowlers to go with Hadlee and Tayfield in the Surrounded by Imbeciles XI.

Imran and Dev worth a shout. Murali if you don't mind playing 2 spinners.

 

[trundler]

Dev had a solid batting lineup though. Imran had a side that could draw tests with the mighty WI so I'm not sure if he qualifies. Murali also was in a good enough side.

 

[trundler]

Demon Spofforth worth a shout

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not really. Batting in the top-order is obviously far more difficult. Fresh wicket, new ball, charged up attack, etc. Openers who average over 50+ are an anomaly for a reason. Now Flower wasn't an opener but he batted higher up the order than Gilchrist. Gilchrist's RPI is 40. Definitely helped by not-outs.

There's that same fallacy again. Not outs don't help your average. It doesn't help to have your innings cut short when you're in and seeing the ball well and having to start your next innings from scratch. I don't know why people think this.

 

[Bolo]

For the whole team to be junk rather than just the discipline makes it tough. Teams are not usually poor for an entire career.

Murali still might be a candidate if you look at the start of his career.

Otherwise, start going a long way back. Fazal Mahmood maybe?

 

[Daemon]

There's that same fallacy again. Not outs don't help your average. It doesn't help to have your innings cut short when you're in and seeing the ball well and having to start your next innings from scratch. I don't know why people think this.

I think it depends on the probability of you getting out before you make it worth that trade off

Different for different batsmen. For someone like Root for example crossing 50 and then staying not out would immensely boost his average.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think it depends on the probability of you getting out before you make it worth that trade off

Different for different batsmen. For someone like Root for example crossing 50 and then staying not out would immensely boost his average.

haha true

I just find it annoying that people have this idea though that not outs = help your average, based on the fact that having more not outs per innings increases your average, completely ignoring the fact that if you have a higher average because you have more not outs it's because you've played better and gotten out less. Not that your average has been undeservedly increased by not outs.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

There's that same fallacy again. Not outs don't help your average. It doesn't help to have your innings cut short when you're in and seeing the ball well and having to start your next innings from scratch. I don't know why people think this.

See Ian Chappell is clearly wrong. Steve Waugh did have an influence over people.

 

[Bolo]

The idea that not outs help your average is an oversimplification of the fact that not outs do not necessarily help your team in the same way that runs do.

If you are assesing a bat based purely on average, ignore not outs entirely. If you are looking at the value a bat adds, they are you worth considering.

 

[Starfighter]

Not outs don't help your average.

So you're saying that Phil Tufnell would've averaged over 15 in ODIs had been given more time to bat.