Best English Batsman Since 1990?

[Lillian Thomson]

. Although take care what you consider as "proven Test batsman" - that doesn't include, for example, Navjot Sidhu.

Which of the following are Test class batsman according to your reckoning. (All deliberately chosen from a particular era when you wouldn't have seen them play.)

Keith Fletcher
Keith Stackpole
Asif Iqbal
Ross Edwards
Majid Khan
Lawrence Rowe

 

[social]

Hussain was no more than a certain name in a certain place at a certain time. Could just as easily have been Roy Fredericks, Glenn Turner or Gary Kirsten.

Which makes far more sense. Although take care what you consider as "proven Test batsman" - that doesn't include, for example, Navjot Sidhu.

And probably plenty of those in the 1900s, 1910s and 1920s too, incidentally.

Except that Fredericks.Turner and Kirsten were all much better than Hussain

None were as good as Hayden

Yet Hussain is better than Hayden

 

[social]

I can't believe anyone would think I haven't thought there's a possible chance. Apparently, in fact, he has improved his batting - against spin. But the first time I came across him, in 1999, he was already one of the best if not the best player of spin in The World.

However, he's never significantly improved his play against seam, no. I think there's ample evidence of that.

And this is just more evidence of why your views on Hayden carry precious little weight - the guy has ALWAYS been regarded as a top class player of pace but totally unproven against spin until at least 2001

 

[Richard]

Except that Fredericks.Turner and Kirsten were all much better than Hussain

None were as good as Hayden

Yet Hussain is better than Hayden

Fredericks, Turner and Kirsten were all far better than Hayden as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Richard]

And this is just more evidence of why your views on Hayden carry precious little weight - the guy has ALWAYS been regarded as a top class player of pace but totally unproven against spin until at least 2001

I'm well aware some people have always regarded him as such, and they, not I, are wrong on the matter as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Richard]

Which of the following are Test class batsman according to your reckoning. (All deliberately chosen from a particular era when you wouldn't have seen them play.)

Keith Fletcher
Keith Stackpole
Asif Iqbal
Ross Edwards
Majid Khan
Lawrence Rowe

Fletcher certainly not, Stackpole I don't know much about him, Asif Iqbal not IIRR but again I don't know that much about him, Ross Edwards no way, Majid Khan probably, Lawrence Rowe was at home and wasn't away.

 

[Engle]

Fletcher certainly not, Stackpole I don't know much about him, Asif Iqbal not IIRR but again I don't know that much about him, Ross Edwards no way, Majid Khan probably, Lawrence Rowe was at home and wasn't away.

Sorry, could'nt resist

Fletcher was decent enough, technically. Stackpole a good hooker. Asif and Majid started as bowlers, then towards batsmanship. Asif shared a world record ATT 190run p'ship with Intikhab for the 9th wkt. Majid was elegant. Rowe we all know about. Only REdwards place debateable, the rest played enough Tests to justify themselves

 

[Richard]

Keith Fletcher (and Mike Denness too) was very similar to Matthew Hayden - a giant against weak bowling, almost always failed to show-up much when the better stuff was on offer.

 

[social]

Keith Fletcher (and Mike Denness too) was very similar to Matthew Hayden - a giant against weak bowling, almost always failed to show-up much when the better stuff was on offer.

Bwuhahahah Denness = Hayden you crack me up

 

[Richard]

I never said they're exact equals at all (I know you'd prefer it if I had), but they do share the ability to score off rubbish bowling and not off high-class seam-bowling.

 

[social]

I never said they're exact equals at all (I know you'd prefer it if I had), but they do share the ability to score off rubbish bowling and not off high-class seam-bowling.

Richard

By your definition, Nasser Hussain is nowhere near test class. Yet he is somehow better than a guy with 29 hundreds to his name and who virtually every judge in cricket would rate above all bar a couple of English batsmen in history

I think you should quit whilst miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiles behind

 

[Richard]

By your definition, Nasser Hussain is nowhere near test class.

Err, no. Hussain was a far better batsman than Mike Denness or Keith Fletcher.

Yet he is somehow better than a guy with 29 hundreds to his name

I couldn't care less about number of hundreds.

who virtually every judge in cricket would rate above all bar a couple of English batsmen in history

Any judge who did that really wouldn't have a clue what they were on about. Also, the bringing of nationality into it makes obvious certain V&A on your part, as well as making it obvious you've mistaken certain V&A on my part too.

I think you should quit whilst miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiles behind

You need to be somewhere to quit while there.

 

[jalaj4you]

I've always found it odd that many nations have had batsmen who average above 50 of recent times but England haven't had one (bar KP and he still has a long way to go to maintain his average). Even Zimbabwe have a cricketer who averaged above 50. In saying that, the likes of Atherton, Gatting, Hussain, Stewart and co are held in high esteem both in their homeland and away, so please enlighten me.

Also, I don;t have a clear criteria, but someone who has debuted in the 70s, but played a a significant amount of their career in the 90s can be accepted.

Graham Thorpe for me.....though i like Vaughan too....

 

[Captain Cricket]

Atherton or Vaughan probably. And Nasser Hussain was decent too.

 

[Perm]

Thorpe was a far better all-round batsmen and scored far more runs against tough bowling than Langer did.

I know it's a fairly basic and crude way of doing things, but just take a look at the stats

Against Test class opposition Graham Thorpe averages 44.34 batting in the middle order (3-6), while in the same period Justin Langer averages 50.04 batting in the top order (opening+3). You've provided me with a fairly broad and basic statement, I'm just interested to know exactly why you think Thorpe>>>Langer.

 

[chalky]

Mostly depending on a fielder to score runs, lmao.

It's no coincidence that England haven't been the same team since Trescothick stopped playing Test Matches.

.

Got to agree with that a lot of England's success during the mini golden run of 2004 - 2005 was built on the opening pair of Strauss & Trescothick. They practically carried the batting during the South African tour & usually got England off to decent starts in the Ashes series.

Think Trescothick overall gets a bit of raw deal TBH. Was a very good batsmen by England's standards I would rate him as England's best opener since Gooch.

 

[chalky]

This thread just makes you realise how dire England's talent pool has been in the last 10 or so years. Sad really.

You could even take it further than that I would say England haven't produced a great player since Botham who debuted in 1977. You could make an arguement for Gooch during the later part of his career which is debatable either way.

And yet there are still people who insist there is nothing wrong with county cricket.

As has been said even Zimbabwe have produced Andy Flower for goodness sake.

 

[Richard]

Got to agree with that a lot of England's success during the mini golden run of 2004 - 2005 was built on the opening pair of Strauss & Trescothick. They practically carried the batting during the South African tour & usually got England off to decent starts in the Ashes series.

Think Trescothick overall gets a bit of raw deal TBH. Was a very good batsmen by England's standards I would rate him as England's best opener since Gooch.

How on Earth can anyone honestly say Trescothick is even close to Atherton, or even the part-time opener Stewart?

 

[Richard]

I know it's a fairly basic and crude way of doing things, but just take a look at the stats

Against Test class opposition Graham Thorpe averages 44.34 batting in the middle order (3-6), while in the same period Justin Langer averages 50.04 batting in the top order (opening+3). You've provided me with a fairly broad and basic statement, I'm just interested to know exactly why you think Thorpe>>>Langer.

Look at the bowling-attacks Langer scored against. There were only a handful of particularly good ones; Thorpe only fairly rarely faced a genuinely weak one (and mostly when he did he cashed-in big-time as Langer did).

If roles were reversed I'd back Thorpe to outscore Langer by far more than 5 or 6.

 

[garypleavin]

How on Earth can anyone honestly say Trescothick is even close to Atherton, or even the part-time opener Stewart?

I've seen a lot of all three of those batsmen mentioned and Atherton wins it by a mile. Its a toss up between Stewart and Trescothick. I have such a huge admiration for the dogged innings's Atherton produced when England were staring down the barrel (happened far too often) and that forward defence of his looked the least penetrable of any batsmen I have seen. That can break a bowlers heart just as much as a six.

Trescothick although is a very good run scorer and has won many matches for England, I wouldn't rely on him under pressure. I'm probably a bit biased towards Stewart because he was throughout the 90's and early 2000's my favourite England player and he could have been so much more if there wasn't constant chopping up the order and keeping duties. I loved his off side play and the mannerisms behind the stumps.