Better Test Batsman: Javed Miandad vs Martin Crowe

[BazBall21]

Crowe's average suffers because he was picked too young and played with injuries. Exactly the same is true of Miandad except he averaged 6 more runs in the same era. Crowe is better than most guys who averaged 50 in the 00s for sure.

One of my favourite players of all time, Crowe. As it’s well documented, he was a 50+ bat in the 85% period in-between starting very young and playing with a finished knee at the end.

 

[srbhkshk]

One of my favourite players of all time, Crowe. As it’s well documented, he was a 50+ bat in the 85% period in-between starting very young and playing with a finished knee at the end.

I am not trying to knock down Crowe or anything, but as impressive as that sounds most batsman who actually end up averaging 50+ tend to have similar periods of time where they are actually averaging 60 or a bit less..

 

[OverratedSanity]

I am not trying to knock down Crowe or anything, but as impressive as that sounds most batsman who actually end up averaging 50+ tend to have similar periods of time where they are actually averaging 60 or a bit less..

This is true. But in context it's not just the pure numbers, its the fact that he was arguably the batsman with the best record during that entire stretch .

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Outperforming everyone for a good decade is something usually only 50+ avg ATGs accomplish. Crowe is relatively unique among the sub 50 group in that sense.

 

[Flem274*]

The answer to this is clearly Miandad but its been funny watching Trundler on the defensive all week between this and YK after he spent the NZ and England tour trying to troll both sets of fans. Give it a couple more weeks I reckon.

 

[BazBall21]

Yeah that is true. It’s more that there were mitigating circumstances on either side. And worth mentioning he was arguably the best in the world 1985-1994. Of course there have been better players than him.

I am not trying to knock down Crowe or anything, but as impressive as that sounds most batsman who actually end up averaging 50+ tend to have similar periods of time where they are actually averaging 60 or a bit less..

 

[srbhkshk]

This is true. But in context it's not just the pure numbers, its the fact that he was arguably the batsman with the best record during that entire stretch
Outperforming everyone for a good decade is something usually only 50+ avg ATGs accomplish. Crowe is relatively unique among the sub 50 group in that sense.

Yep, yep, I agree that he's quite a bit better than his numbers suggest, just that averaging better than your final average for the majority of your career isn't really proof of that.

 

[trundler]

The answer to this is clearly Miandad but its been funny watching Trundler on the defensive all week between this and YK after he spent the NZ and England tour trying to troll both sets of fans. Give it a couple more weeks I reckon.

I clearly rate Crowe pretty highly. He's ATG for me and NZ's best ever. He was the best batsman across formats for an extended period of time and I do give him concession for having to debut too early a la Tendulkar. The underrating of Miandad ties into just how overlooked Hadlee's monstrous spree was in the 80s for me. I've gone off about how NZ cricket is basically pre and post Hadlee so for the only guy who dominated Sir Richard home and away to be continually and inexplicably crapped on gets under my skin more than it should probably. This shouldn't even be a question. Crowe is special because he was so good in such a tough era and Miandad is one of 3 blokes to average 50 in the same era. People give Gavaskar props for being the only opener since Sir Len to average 50 before the 00s roadfests yet Miandad who was arguably the best batsman of the 80s statistically is demoted to ATVG status. No one uses Botham's record against WI to completely disregard his achievements altogether. Just doesn't make any sense to me. For the record, I rate Cairns pretty highly too and had been voting for him before Stokes et al in the all rounder thread.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I clearly rate Crowe pretty highly. He's ATG for me and NZ's best ever. He was the best batsman across formats for an extended period of time and I do give him concession for having to debut too early a la Tendulkar. The underrating of Miandad ties into just how overlooked Hadlee's monstrous spree was in the 80s for me. I've gone off about how NZ cricket is basically pre and post Hadlee so for the only guy who dominated Sir Richard home and away to be continually and inexplicably crapped on gets under my skin more than it should probably. This shouldn't even be a question. Crowe is special because he was so good in such a tough era and Miandad is one of 3 blokes to average 50 in the same era. People give Gavaskar props for being the only opener since Sir Len to average 50 before the 00s roadfests yet Miandad who was arguably the best batsman of the 80s statistically is demoted to ATVG status. No one uses Botham's record against WI to completely disregard his achievements altogether. Just doesn't make any sense to me. For the record, I rate Cairns pretty highly too and had been voting for him before Stokes et al in the all rounder thread.

I dunno, this feels like a strawman.

Also, I only just realized you're arguing he's underrated not overrated. Your posting has been so confusing ffs.

Miandad is criminally and systematically overrated in hindsight on this forum as it

 

[Flem274*]

I clearly rate Crowe pretty highly. He's ATG for me and NZ's best ever. He was the best batsman across formats for an extended period of time and I do give him concession for having to debut too early a la Tendulkar. The underrating of Miandad ties into just how overlooked Hadlee's monstrous spree was in the 80s for me. I've gone off about how NZ cricket is basically pre and post Hadlee so for the only guy who dominated Sir Richard home and away to be continually and inexplicably crapped on gets under my skin more than it should probably. This shouldn't even be a question. Crowe is special because he was so good in such a tough era and Miandad is one of 3 blokes to average 50 in the same era. People give Gavaskar props for being the only opener since Sir Len to average 50 before the 00s roadfests yet Miandad who was arguably the best batsman of the 80s statistically is demoted to ATVG status. No one uses Botham's record against WI to completely disregard his achievements altogether. Just doesn't make any sense to me. For the record, I rate Cairns pretty highly too and had been voting for him before Stokes et al in the all rounder thread.

Who puts Miandad in the ATVG category?

Without wanting to essay-post I'm personally moving away from conventional measures of or even valuing "greatness" and towards things that matter like how valuable you were during the time you played.

In terms of value, Miandad is right up there with the best in history. He was a 50+ batsman when averaging 38-39 secured your spot in any team around.

As an aside, your "pre Hadlee and post Hadlee" thing is neither new nor correct. Media have been defining NZ by Hadlee since forever. The popular narrative of pretending it was Hadlee and 10 hacks conveniently forgets a lot of good players he shared a dressing room with including Crowe himself and NZ had world class players before Hadlee. Many of them either lacked opportunities to play lots of tests or were wasted on County Cricket because it paid money.

 

[trundler]

I dunno, this feels like a strawman.

Also, I only just realized you're arguing he's underrated not overrated. Your posting has been so confusing ffs.

Oh my bad. Typo. Soz.

Yeah maybe I'm exaggerating but that is a staggering achievement which isn't afforded the respect it deserves. Border and Gavaskar were better because they were better away yeah but it's not a slam dunk by any means. Gavaskar low key made hay during in Australia during the Packer era. Otherwise his record there isn't much better than Miandad. Border struggled against Hadlee in '85. The WI record is pretty meh but he did score a pretty good century against them. It's at least better than Botham yet I've seen posters here say ****ing Boon was better than him because of it.

Who puts Miandad in the ATVG category?

Without wanting to essay-post I'm personally moving away from conventional measures of or even valuing "greatness" and towards things that matter like how valuable you were during the time you played.

In terms of value, Miandad is right up there with the best in history. He was a 50+ batsman when averaging 38-39 secured your spot in any team around.

As an aside, your "pre Hadlee and post Hadlee" thing is neither new nor correct. Media have been defining NZ by Hadlee since forever. The popular narrative of pretending it was Hadlee and 10 hacks conveniently forgets a lot of good players he shared a dressing room with including Crowe himself and NZ had world class players before Hadlee. Many of them either lacked opportunities to play lots of tests or were wasted on County Cricket because it paid money.

Definitely not 10 hacks but Hadlee = Murali in terms of carrying a team. Bowled unchanged for a session in England's first ever win in England and was the main character in multiple overseas wins when NZ had never won a test against England or Australia, or even won 4 in a row. All of which had Hadlee at the center of it. NZ going undefeated at home for a decade is insane and for Miandad to be the best player there is an overlooked achievement because it wasn't a marquee series. That was my point anyway. Forum needs more old timer Pakistani posters to push back against this IMO.

 

[Flem274*]

Definitely not 10 hacks but Hadlee = Murali in terms of carrying a team.

Hadlee and Murali played with several guys who make every team in the world today at a leisurely stroll, the #1 South African and English sides before them and probably most teams in their own eras as well.*

*I know this comment will be technically'd to death. The 00s Australian team is obviously going to be an outlier to all bar Sangakkara. England and South Africa were always running around with a couple of good or even average (Alviro Petersen anyone?) players during their time at the top though.

 

[trundler]

Hadlee and Murali played with several guys who make every team in the world today at a leisurely stroll, the #1 South African and English sides before them and probably most teams in their own eras as well.*

*I know this comment will be technically'd to death. The 00s Australian team is obviously going to be an outlier to all bar Sangakkara. England and South Africa were always running around with a couple of good or even average (Alviro Petersen anyone?) players during their time at the top though.

I'm not arguing something different. Murali is the only guy with a comparable single handed impact on his team imo. You can argue about the extent but no other bowler bowled such a high portion of his team's overs to such a high standard except Murali.

 

[BazBall21]

I clearly rate Crowe pretty highly. He's ATG for me and NZ's best ever. He was the best batsman across formats for an extended period of time and I do give him concession for having to debut too early a la Tendulkar. The underrating of Miandad ties into just how overlooked Hadlee's monstrous spree was in the 80s for me. I've gone off about how NZ cricket is basically pre and post Hadlee so for the only guy who dominated Sir Richard home and away to be continually and inexplicably crapped on gets under my skin more than it should probably. This shouldn't even be a question. Crowe is special because he was so good in such a tough era and Miandad is one of 3 blokes to average 50 in the same era. People give Gavaskar props for being the only opener since Sir Len to average 50 before the 00s roadfests yet Miandad who was arguably the best batsman of the 80s statistically is demoted to ATVG status. No one uses Botham's record against WI to completely disregard his achievements altogether. Just doesn't make any sense to me. For the record, I rate Cairns pretty highly too and had been voting for him before Stokes et al in the all rounder thread.

Javed is definitely an ATG for mine.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

This is true. But in context it's not just the pure numbers, its the fact that he was arguably the batsman with the best record during that entire stretch .

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Outperforming everyone for a good decade is something usually only 50+ avg ATGs accomplish. Crowe is relatively unique among the sub 50 group in that sense.

Only 6 batsmen averaged above 50 in that table. Half of them are Indians. No other country managed more than 1.
India must have been very strong in those days ?

 

[Anil]

both absolute ****s as people but crowe as a batsman is one of my all-time favorites...however he was also a perennial underachiever and miandad clearly accomplished more during his career than crowe...

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The underrating of Miandad ties into just how overlooked Hadlee's monstrous spree was in the 80s for me. I've gone off about how NZ cricket is basically pre and post Hadlee so for the only guy who dominated Sir Richard home and away to be continually and inexplicably crapped on gets under my skin more than it should probably.

Interestingly Hadlee never dismissed in Crowe in first class cricket (Canterbury vs Auckland/CD and Notts v Somerset in England). Don't know how many times they faced each other or how many runs Crowe scored in those games. Btw I voted for Miandad but Crowe was an absolute gun.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Bowled unchanged for a session in England's first ever win in England

Hadlee was a genius (up with Marshall and McGrath imo) but that's a really weird stat to bring out. Do you realise he took ZERO wickets in NZ's first ever win in England? Scored 75 and 6* with the bat though.

21 overs 0/44
26 overs 0/45

Meanwhile motm Lance Cairns took 7 wickets in the first innings (10 in the match) and Chatfield took a 2nd innings 5-fer.

 

[trundler]

Hadlee was a genius (up with Marshall and McGrath imo) but that's a really weird stat to bring out. Do you realise he took ZERO wickets in NZ's first ever win in England? Scored 75 and 6* with the bat though.

21 overs 0/44
26 overs 0/45

Meanwhile motm Lance Cairns took 7 wickets in the first innings (10 in the match) and Chatfield took a 2nd innings 5-fer.

Was it their first ever win against England then? I was telling about workload tho.

 

[jcas0167]

Miandad has the edge statistically, but they're not that far apart in my somewhat biased eyes. Crowe had an outstanding record against the Windies and did well against Akram and Waqar in Pakistan. Akram rated him the best player of reverse swing. Hadlee mentioned in his book that he never got him out that I think annoyed him slightly. Crowe is one of my favorites because of his incredibly elegant batting style, but Miandad is probably the guy you want batting for your life.

 

[Zinzan]

Crowe was the more talented batsman, but Miandad achieved more statistically, helped greatly by the assistance of home umpires.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, had Crowe been born in Australia he would have averaged >55 in Tests & I base that on;

1) the fact he would have likely been picked around the age of 22-23 & not 19 as with NZ &
2) He loved the more bouncy Australian wickets and averaged 67 there in 15 innings.
3) He would have played more matches in his peak years (23-32) including 5 Test ashes series