Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
****, leave the guy alone. You can criticize his arguments if you want, but he made a simple spelling error.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Between September 2001 and the day of this post...
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
CONFESSION.......................little acorns............admitting adding an incorrect "n" today................admitting that first chance averages are pointless tomorrow.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Calm down old son, he picked me up yesterday for using "you're" instead of "your" and this was in response, a fact he's probably well aware of.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Doesn't mean I like you.A change of tune?
Nonetheless, I'll not complain.
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Apologies. Thought you were just being a **** for fun.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
That'd be asking a bit much. Just not so long ago you were doing exactly what you just criticised LT for, and a change of tune there is welcome for everyone TSTL.
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
Depends what you mean by "most". Any NZ fan who suffered through the mid-1990s would dispute that claim. Even in the lead-up to the 1992 World Cup and our seven wins in a row, Martin Crowe's captaincy was under threat after a 0-3 series loss to England.
Code:
Series Win P W L T NR % HS LS MC LC BatAv BowAv R/6b C/6b
Benson & Hedges World Series (Aus/NZ/SA) in Australia, 1993/94 [Tournament]
Aus 7 3 4 0 0 43% 256 135 219 147 20.5 31.4 3.74 4.09
Pakistan in New Zealand, 1993/94 [Series]
Pak 5 1 3 1 0 30% 202 110 213 145 18.5 20.2 3.59 3.62
India in New Zealand, 1993/94 [Series]
- 4 2 2 0 0 50% 243 142 255 212 30.2 36.1 4.25 4.80
Pepsi Austral-Asia Cup (Aus/Ind/NZ/Pak/SL/UAE) in U.A.E., 1993/94 [Tournament]
Pak 3 1 2 0 0 33% 266 207 328 215 28.7 53.6 4.60 5.08
Texaco Trophy (Eng/NZ) in England, 1994 [Series]
Eng 1 0 1 0 0 0% 182 182 224 224 18.2 28.0 3.44 4.07
Wills World Series (Ind/NZ/WI) in India, 1994/95 [Tournament]
Ind 4 0 3 0 1 0% 269 171 306 123 26.9 44.9 4.18 5.27
Mandela Trophy (NZ/Pak/SA/SL) in South Africa, 1994/95 [Tournament]
SA 6 0 5 0 1 0% 255 134 314 203 23.5 42.4 4.38 5.11
West Indies in New Zealand, 1994/95 [Series]
WI 3 0 3 0 0 0% 205 146 246 246 19.9 60.4 3.84 4.71
New Zealand Centenary Tournament (Aus/Ind/NZ/SA) in New Zealand, 1994/95
[Tournament]
Aus 4 2 2 0 0 50% 249 137 254 160 25.0 26.0 4.25 4.33
Sri Lanka in New Zealand, 1994/95 [Series]
NZ 3 2 1 0 0 67% 280 199 250 238 34.0 27.5 5.11 4.69
New Zealand in India, 1995/96 [Series]
Ind 5 2 3 0 0 40% 348 126 249 236 30.3 30.1 4.82 4.73
Pakistan in New Zealand, 1995/96 [Series]
- 4 2 2 0 0 50% 244 169 261 189 23.1 27.9 4.56 4.66
Zimbabwe in New Zealand, 1995/96 [Series]
NZ 3 2 1 0 0 67% 278 246 267 181 37.2 25.0 5.14 4.53
Wills World Cup (Aus/Eng/Ind/Ken/NL/NZ/Pak/SA/SL/UAE/WI/Zim) in
Pakistan/India/Sri Lanka, 1995/96 [Tournament]
SL 6 3 3 0 0 50% 307 177 289 188 31.0 34.1 5.16 4.71
New Zealand in West Indies, 1995/96 [Series]
WI 5 2 3 0 0 40% 243 158 247 154 26.1 34.5 4.68 4.561993/4 - didn't make the final of the World Series Cup after beating Australia in an ODI series the year before, got cleaned up by Pakistan, only winning one game, squared a series with India at home, won one from three in the Austral-Asia Cup.
1994 - lost the one ODI in England
1994/95 - didn't win a game in a tournament in India, likewise in a tournament in South Africa, lost all three ODIs at home against West Indies, and restored a tiny bit of pride with two wins in their own centenary tournament and a series win over an average Sri Lankan side.
1995/96 - lost an away series to India, shared a series with Pakistan, including a game which is now believed to have been fixed, beating Zimbabwe at home (woop-de-do), making the quarters at the WC, and losing an away series in the Windies.
Can't be bothered doing the tests as well, but the only genuinely good results there would be a third test win over Pakistan in 1993/4 (also under suspiscion), a first test win in South Africa before we got pumped in the other two tests and... umm....
shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
I find it mind-boggling that batsmen would forgo opportunities to score. Yes, I understand that batsmen in the past have been ridiculously self restricted for the sake of preserving their "technique". However I would be very cautious in accepting a hypothesis which essentially makes the assumption that batsmen weren't trying to the best of their abilities. Its almost unheard of for athletes to do such a thing in any competitive sport.
shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
Nah, hes been making a solid effort in this and other regards for a fair while now. And you'd either have to be extremely foolish, or not paying any attention to think otherwise.
ohtani's jacket
State Vice-Captain
The story exploded in the '99/00 season, but it was gaining steam from '97 onwards. It cast doubt on a lot of cricket played in the 90s -- excellent, dead or otherwise. Nobody cares about it now, but it was a major deal at the time and not the rosiest of ends to supposedly the greatest decade of cricket ever. There were match fixing allegations about almost every series NZ played in the late 90s. The New Zealanders were never implicated, but it took the sheen off any win.
Can you post it again or link to it?
Last edited:
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
It's more of a case of a mindset. A wide half volley used to be left because it was wide and wasn't a chance of getting you out. Now it is hit because it is a half volley.
social
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Pollock has taken over 200 wickets in the mid-twenties either since the begiining of 2001 or from Sep 2001 - take your pick, it's still outstanding and, on this period alone (let alone his career stats) to claim that "there have been countless hundreds of better bowlers than Pollock in history" is utter garbagePollock's figures between 2001\02 and 2006 are in fact 150 wickets at over 28, which is nothing more than a middling record. It's not poor, of course not, but it's certainly not remotely close to being outstanding, and hence he cannot be said to have conquered flat pitches the way Murali et al have.
There've been very few great spin-bowlers since uncovered wickets ended, for this precise reason. Hardly anyone spins it enough to be effective outside the subcontinent, and almost all those that try to can't do it with enough accuracy (broadly these can be classified as fingerspinners and wristspinners, but as Kumble shows not all wristspinners are the big-spinning-wayward variety).
Ergo, Kumble, like most spin-bowlers, isn't a great, he's merely a great at home and mostly anodyne away (or roughly that anyway, there have been some exceptions).
Err, no it's not. The bowler has the ball in his hand, how nonsensical to suggest the batsman controls the game.
There have been countless hundreds of better bowlers than Pollock in history, and countless hundreds of better seamers than a mere spinner in Kumble.
The Gilchrist of the last 4 years would be outstripped by any number of wicketkeeper-batsmen in history.
That Ponting can be considered such - so unequivocally - is indicative of the low quality of the period.
Vaas' presence is no gurantee of anything and never has been.
Pollock hasn't been one of SA's best ever for a long while though.
In any case, there will be fine players at any time; there were far more in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, etc. than there are now. There are nowhere near enough good bowlers, and hence we cannot know how good the batsmen really are.
As far as spinners are concerned, you're inferring that there have only been 2 great ones ever, i.e. every spin bowler bar Murali and Warne has either an inferior record to the best pacemen or played in an era where they received an inordinate amount of help from the pitch and their records are tainted - that is plainly ridiculous
The fact is that spinners' perform a variety of roles
a. wickets
b. variety
c. work-horse
d. economy
e. etc
If it was as simple as saying that averages shows a good pacer to be more effective than a spinner, then why are they ever picked if playing away from home and/or you have a couple of half-reasonable seamers?
The rest is in a similar vein so I cant really be bothered commenting
Last edited:
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Did he really say that? That's the only downside when you stop reading his piffle, you miss out on gems like that.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yep, the record in run-of-the-mill ODI tournaments was often poor.
That wasn't what I was getting-at, however.
New Zealand had a far better calibre of player available for much more of the 1990s than not than they've had for the last 3 or 4 years or so.
pasag
RTDAS
He did quote you though, I've read it over a few times and that is exactly what you said unless I'm missing something.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What does it matter that there may have been match-fixing allegations in every series New Zealand played? New Zealand aren't the only cricket-playing team.
Either way, make of it what you want - the match-fixing scandal does not and never will change the fact that there were countless excellent games of cricket played by countless excellent cricketers (most of whom never, ever countenanced match-fixing).
.......... Can't imagine there'd be a hell of a lot of Kiwis who'd be happy to accept the findings though TBH.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What I said was that there have been countless hundreds of better bowlers in history than Pollock between 2001\02 and 2005\06, which is very true, he was generally pretty anodyne in this time.
Re-reading the post, though, it's obvious where a misleading could have happened - naturally, though, some (the LTs of this World for instance) are going to deliberately misread it for obvious reasons.