Best New Zealand line-up?

[Richard]

where have i said that jeremy snape was amongst the best bowlers in the world? anybody who has a 4.57 after a limited number of games is bound to improve and get better.

Bound to, yes.
No, if he'd avoided the three timely injuries that he got, which stopped him facing India (twice), Australia (up to 6 times) and Sri Lanka (up to 4 times) I'd be astounded if his ER wasn't over 5-an-over, maybe even up towards 6.

 

[Richard]

handpicking again?

No, not at all.

this is bordering on the point of lunacy....you cannot pick all players successful performances and look solely at their poor performances. quite frankly i could do the same with vaas by handpicking his performances on seaming wickets and against the useless attacks and hed come out with an ER of around 4.5

And I haven't done that.
I've mentioned that but for his last 2 games, both on very very slow, turning wickets, his record wouldn't be anywhere near as good.
Handpicking would be removing every dot-ball and every ball with a wicket to it's name, or even simply removing single-game spells which have produced good figures.
But I haven't done either of them. So therefore I've simply shown why his record is misleading.

 

[Richard]

its just amazing how you keep twisting around your own arguments. just because you believe that some of those players werent good enough it doesnt mean its true!

Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of that, you are the one who seems not to realise it.

you cannot just say that players like ed smith,steve james etc all deserved more chances while players like mahmood, troughton,batty etc didnt because they all failed just about as badly as each other. there are several people who believe that some of those in the latter set had potential and several other who believe that players in the former set didnt. you yourself said that failure cannot be judge from 5 innings, yet when more than half that players on that list didnt get that many innings you say that they were failures in their limited chances and would have been an outcry had they got more. quite frankly i could say the same thing about chris adams,bicknell,steve james,matthe maynard and ed smith

And you'd be wrong. Plenty of them are widely considered to have been very unlucky. Especially Bicknell and Maynard.
Don't you get it that just because you might believe Batty, Troughton, Mahmood or some other inconclusive-failure has potential and you don't believe James, Maynard etc. did (and because you want them to be part of your trend of domestic-success-international-failure) doesn't mean there is any fact about the matter.

 

[Richard]

Right, there's been approximately 50 bowlers under 4 as a career eco rate.

Of those, 3 are still playing.

So you're trying to tell us that the likes of Max Walker, Chris Old, Simon Davis, Mike Whitney, Adam Dale, Vic Marks and John Lever are all better bowlers than ANY current bowler?

Or could it be that they played when the game was a more even match between bat and ball?

Most of them, yes, rather obviously, but not Dale.
The game pre-1992 was, of course, a more even contest between bat and ball.
It is too much of a coincidence that economy-rates have taken such a large general rise since the late 80s, when they didn't change much throughout the 70s or 80s.
However, the bowlers who have played in the mid-90s and the early 2000s haven't seen much increase in economy-rate, the increase has been due to good bowlers (Dale, Caddick, Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, a few examples) retiring and substandard ones replacing them. Plus some good bowlers being dropped for the wrong reasons (like Ealham and Mullally).

 

[Richard]

Don't think so. An average of nearly 44 is very good. You can't get away with being lucky forever. They say an average of over 40 is the benchmark in test cricket, well nearly 44 is pretty good if you ask me. So Tescothick gives the of chance - he's an attacking player.

No, you can't be lucky forever. And Trescothick's scored far less lucky runs since 2002 than he did in the 2 years before that.

And as one good test match since 2002 - see below from cricinfo :
13 76 DNB 4 0 D 1st Test v SL in Eng 2002 at Lord's [1603]
161 - DNB 1 0 W 2nd Test v SL in Eng 2002 at Birmingham [1605]
81 23* DNB 0 0 W 3rd Test v SL in Eng 2002 at Manchester [1606]

I said since 2002\03 - all these innings needed luck. He was absolutely plumb lbw on 44 in the 76 (1603), on 27 in the 161 (1605) and was dropped on 64 and 66, then 22 (1606).

57 58* DNB 0 0 D 4th Test v Ind in Eng 2002 at The Oval [1614]
72 1 DNB 3 0 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 2002/03 at Brisbane [1623]

59 4 DNB 0 0 L 4th Test v SA in Eng 2003 at Leeds [1656]
219 69* DNB 1 0 W 5th Test v SA in Eng 2003 at The Oval [1659]
113 32 DNB 4 0 W 1st Test v BD in BD 2003/04 at Dhaka [1665]
60 1* DNB 0 0 W 2nd Test v BD in BD 2003/04 at Chittagong [1667]

He was dropped on 1 in the 72 (1623), you've missed a 51* at Edgbaston against South Africa (dropped on 51).
So basically he made twin-half-centuries then embarked on a run of 18 consecutive Test-innings (ie not including the substandard Zimbabwe side) in which he scored 2 chanceless half-centuries. He then had a sensational game at The Oval (where he has only failed to pass 50 twice in eight innings in Tests), one innings of which needed a dropped catch on 1, and faced another substandard team against whom runs mean nothing more than runs at county level.
Then he embarked on another run where he scored 2 half-centuries (one in which he was caught-behind on one) in 12 innings.
Since the start of this season he's scored plenty of runs and full credit to him, but if it weren't for that 221 followed by a dropped-catch then a Bangladesh tour it is beyond question that he wouldn't have been in the side at the start of this summer.

 

[Richard]

I agree with you though..Trescothick does give the opposition a chance because he is a very aggressive opening batsman(all attacking opening batsman give chances)...it is up to the opposition to take the chances, and if they dont early on, Trescothick has the talent to make them pay big time .

Some players are just like that (have a look at Bothams 149* in 81, it was lucky but he still deserved every single run in that innings...his 118 at Old Trafford was a better innings,and yet he was dropped early on by Mike Whitney,but he still derserved the hundred)

If Whitney had caught the catch (I've never seen it so I can't comment on whether or not he should have) would Botham have made any more than what he was on when he dropped it?
As for the 149*, did he give any chances? I've never seen one myself. If there are no chances, there might be some lucky strokes, but so what? He's done well enough to avoid getting out.
If you look you will see that Trescothick between 2000 and 2002 received far more luck than normal. Since The Oval 2002 he's not received anywhere near as much, and it's no coincidence that before this summer his form, with the exception of The Oval 2003, has been very, very poor.

 

[Richard]

So Richard, a batsman plays 65 Tests and has an average of 54 with a highest score of 263* but has a domestic record (or County record) of 34 does that make him a useless Test batsman?

Most (if not all) would be tripping up over themselves to have somebody like that in their team (Test success).

Of course th is a hypothethitcal (sp) situation.

Exactly, Craig, it's hypothetical, and we all know the answer.
But it very, very rarely happens.
Even Sangakkara (did you look at him when coming-up with this, his First-Class record used to be very similar in both Tests and domestic) has recently seen an increase in his First-Class average.

 

[Richard]

yet they all had successful domestic records! another contradiction here?

Newport's substandardness can of course be judged with certainty on 64 overs against very strong Australian batting-line-ups on flat wickets.
And Pringle was a disappointment in his international career, I don't think anyone would say anything otherwise.
However, he's still very much in a minority. If you want to go back that far there are lots more players you can add to the trend of domestic-success-international-success (Gooch, Gatting, Smith, Robinson, Broad, Lamb, to name a few).

strange that....derek pringle had a similar domestic record and he went on to achieve greatness didnt he?

And of course the fact that Pringle averaged a whole 5-and-three-quarter runs lower than Botham means his record is similar.
And the fact that Botham's record took a rather large turn for the worse in his later years as he played on too long is irrelevant too?

yes with a brilliant first class average of 36.21 and limited overs record of 30. incidentally rikki clarke also averages 36 in first class cricket and of course you predicted failure for him didnt you?

And of course his comparative failure (32 against Bangladesh isn't exactly much to shout about) is soooo conclusive, especially given that it was up at 40 before the final innings in which he had to sacrifice his wicket for quick runs.
Just because almost everyone on here doesn't like him and he's nothing in terms of a one-day player, plus the fact he's having an ordinary season this term doesn't mean he's automatically not Test-class.

 

[marc71178]

Most of them, yes, rather obviously, but not Dale.

You must be joking if you put Vic Marks as a better bowler than Shane Warne...

It is too much of a coincidence that economy-rates have taken such a large general rise since the late 80s, when they didn't change much throughout the 70s or 80s.

No, it isn't a coincidence - it is a clear result of the game being made so much more batsman-friendly that an arbitrary figure of 4.5 is far too low.

 

[tooextracool]

Bound to, yes.
No, if he'd avoided the three timely injuries that he got, which stopped him facing India (twice), Australia (up to 6 times) and Sri Lanka (up to 4 times) I'd be astounded if his ER wasn't over 5-an-over, maybe even up towards 6.

which all comes down to the fact that you dont like him.....face it if harmison averaged 24 after another 2 years you'd be saying that if he had played against SL and not against b'desh and the WI he would have been averaging in the 40s.

 

[tooextracool]

No, not at all.

And I haven't done that.
I've mentioned that but for his last 2 games, both on very very slow, turning wickets, his record wouldn't be anywhere near as good.
Handpicking would be removing every dot-ball and every ball with a wicket to it's name, or even simply removing single-game spells which have produced good figures.
But I haven't done either of them. So therefore I've simply shown why his record is misleading.

why should anything be removed from his stats? as ive said before if i did the same with vaas outside of slow turning wickets and seamer friendly wickets he'd be having an ER far beyond 4.5.

 

[tooextracool]

And you'd be wrong. Plenty of them are widely considered to have been very unlucky. Especially Bicknell and Maynard.
Don't you get it that just because you might believe Batty, Troughton, Mahmood or some other inconclusive-failure has potential and you don't believe James, Maynard etc. did (and because you want them to be part of your trend of domestic-success-international-failure) doesn't mean there is any fact about the matter.

and dont you get it that just because maynard and bicknell happened to have good domestic records it doesnt mean that they were good enough to play international cricket?
and no i dont believe either batty or troughton(in ODIs) has potential, but with you using maynard as someone who does despite similar failures is just plain ridiculous.
and how you find maynard unlucky is beyond me....considering that he had 8 test match innings and 11 ODI innings, a whole 4 innings more than whats required by your standards. yet he never managed to get a 50.

 

[tooextracool]

Newport's substandardness can of course be judged with certainty on 64 overs against very strong Australian batting-line-ups on flat wickets.
And Pringle was a disappointment in his international career, I don't think anyone would say anything otherwise.
However, he's still very much in a minority. If you want to go back that far there are lots more players you can add to the trend of domestic-success-international-success (Gooch, Gatting, Smith, Robinson, Broad, Lamb, to name a few).

lets go back then shall we?
both newport and pringle are part of a long list of domestic success - international failures....alan igglesden,kim barnett,rob bailey,tim curtis,paul jarvis(ODIs),martyn moxon,neil radford,neil foster,norman cowans,paul allott,robin jackman and several others.

And of course the fact that Pringle averaged a whole 5-and-three-quarter runs lower than Botham means his record is similar.
And the fact that Botham's record took a rather large turn for the worse in his later years as he played on too long is irrelevant too?.

no because his bowling record was in fact better than bothams, yet he never went on to achieve anything in his international career.

And of course his comparative failure (32 against Bangladesh isn't exactly much to shout about) is soooo conclusive, especially given that it was up at 40 before the final innings in which he had to sacrifice his wicket for quick runs.

2 things....
1)his average wasnt upto 40, it was 34.50 before that innings and he scored 27.
2) averaging 32 against b'desh is disgraceful.

 

[Craig]

Haven't we done this before in a different thread or 7 which is completely irrelevant to New Zealand's best line-up?

 

[Richard]

You must be joking if you put Vic Marks as a better bowler than Shane Warne...

And what has that to do with anything?
Where did I say such a thing?

No, it isn't a coincidence - it is a clear result of the game being made so much more batsman-friendly that an arbitrary figure of 4.5 is far too low.

Err, yes, that's what I was saying - it's no coincidence.
But still the game hasn't changed much since about 1992 and the figures that were acceptible then (ie under 4-an-over very good, over 4.5 far too expensive) are still applicable now.
The fact that there are less able bowlers around today than there were 3 or 4 years ago is just coincidence.

 

[Richard]

which all comes down to the fact that you dont like him.....face it if harmison averaged 24 after another 2 years you'd be saying that if he had played against SL and not against b'desh and the WI he would have been averaging in the 40s.

Let's wait and see how the next 2 years unfold, then, shall we?
I don't "not like" Snape at all, I just don't think he's anywhere near ODI-standard. And I'm very confident that had he played more, in less favourable circumstances, than he did, then his record would be a hell of a lot worse.

 

[Richard]

why should anything be removed from his stats? as ive said before if i did the same with vaas outside of slow turning wickets and seamer friendly wickets he'd be having an ER far beyond 4.5.

And that applies to almost every bowler around. Almost all will have economy-rates beyond 4.5 in very batsman-friendly conditions. Because if the wicketkeeper doesn't stand-up to a seamer, he can always be hit around with comparative ease.
Snape, meanwhile, is a fingerspinner and fingerspinners can be hit around with extreme ease in almost any conditions except those in which he played his last 2 games.

 

[Richard]

and dont you get it that just because maynard and bicknell happened to have good domestic records it doesnt mean that they were good enough to play international cricket?

Yes, of course it doesn't - but they are widely considered to be two of the unluckiest cricketers around.

and no i dont believe either batty or troughton(in ODIs) has potential, but with you using maynard as someone who does despite similar failures is just plain ridiculous.

Similar failures, and different domestic success.

and how you find maynard unlucky is beyond me....considering that he had 8 test match innings and 11 ODI innings, a whole 4 innings more than whats required by your standards. yet he never managed to get a 50.

Neither of these figures are up to the 15 you have used as given, when it isn't.
Personally Maynard is one of these players like Chopra is for you - just because he's blown his fair chance (which Maynard, in Tests, didn't as far as I'm concerned, he never got enough chances) doesn't mean we can't give him more than his fair go because we believe he's got potential.

 

[Richard]

lets go back then shall we?
both newport and pringle are part of a long list of domestic success - international failures....alan igglesden,kim barnett,rob bailey,tim curtis,paul jarvis(ODIs),martyn moxon,neil radford,neil foster,norman cowans,paul allott,robin jackman and several others.

And how many of these failures show anything conclusive? Not many, because most of them are very limited. And not all of them, by any stretch, have been domestic successes that suggested international potential.

no because his bowling record was in fact better than bothams, yet he never went on to achieve anything in his international career.

Far better, eh? No, almost exactly the same. And only by the end of Botham's career - had he retired 5 years before he did, and not gone past his best, unlike Pringle, his record would have been a hell of a lot better.

2 things....
1)his average wasnt upto 40, it was 34.50 before that innings and he scored 27.
2) averaging 32 against b'desh is disgraceful.

No, it's not disgraceful, it's just not what you'd hope for.
It is poor, no doubting that, but it's certainly not disgraceful.
Maybe I meant it was up to 40 before he was out in that innings.

 

[Richard]

Haven't we done this before in a different thread or 7 which is completely irrelevant to New Zealand's best line-up?

Yep, almost certainly, and it'll probably happen time and again, too.
Discussion evolution isn't particularly unusual, and from what I can see this thread's title-topic is just about dead in the water.