Cricinfo Best Test 11 from last 25 years

[Mr Miyagi]

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.

Agreed. (Especially in ODI - but in tests it holds true too)

 

[OverratedSanity]

Oh boy

 

[Mr Miyagi]

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.

Where's Keppler? Where's Boonie? Deano a myth? He's a Victorian!

Dodemaide wasn't the worst cricketer either. But Dyer was dire.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

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.

Jack Russell missing out to Alec Stewart for the best part of a decade before Gilly debut'd would probably beg to differ really.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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

No. I'm not saying not outs necessarily hurt your average. Just that they don't help.

Jack Russell missing out to Alec Stewart for the best part of a decade before Gilly debut'd would probably beg to differ really.

Alec Stewart is a better example than Flower. I'm not sure Stewart was a great keeper but he surely had Flower covered.

Also IIRC Stewart's batting when playing as a keeper wasn't actually that great.

edit: averaged 34 as a keeper. Not bad but nothing special either.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

1 Atherton
2 Warner
3 Bancroft
4 Dravid/S Smith
5 Faf
6 Chandimal +
7 Afridi
8 Imran
9 Akram
10 Younis
11 Pringle

12 Trescothick

 

[TheJediBrah]

Surely Tendulkar would be first name picked in any Tamper XI

 

[Starfighter]

No. I'm not saying not outs necessarily hurt your average. Just that they don't help.

With a high score of 5*, I think (in that extreme example, but it occurs subtly elsewhere) it did help.

 

[Bolo]

Jack Russell missing out to Alec Stewart for the best part of a decade before Gilly debut'd would probably beg to differ really.

Okay. Stewart plus flower then Gilchrist. I'm wrong on this point. It was a shift in the game that occurred around Gilchrists time and while he was a part of it he wasn't a pioneer.

 

[TheJediBrah]

With a high score of 5*, I think (in that extreme example, but it occurs subtly elsewhere) it did help.

Just looked up his stats didn't realise you were talking about his actual ODI stats. Clearly it helped, but that's just a case of luck of the draw which always plays a big role in such a small sample size (only batted 10 times, and dismissed once).

 

[OverratedSanity]

Stewart wasn't that good as a keeper either tbh. England's biggest screwup in the 90s was not letting him be a specialist batsman and give Russell the gloves. Stewart was extremely talented with the bat and they wasted him.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Okay. Stewart plus flower then Gilchrist. I'm wrong on this point. It was a shift in the game that occurred around Gilchrists time and while he was a part of it he wasn't a pioneer.

Not sure about Flower. As a master batsman of spin, I struggle with the claims he was a poor keeper myself.

Stewart definitely.

There's rumours floating around about Ames that are also fiercely denied (a pioneer for sure - but didn't start the continuation of the trend).

The irony is how swiftly Sri Lankan wicket keepers still are to get rid of the gloves. From Tilikiratne, to Sanga to Chandimal - they are not able to get rid of them fast enough.

Aus had Wayne Philips in the 1980's so Gilly hardly even started it for them.

Watling took up the gloves after a long long time just to get back into intl cricket.

 

[Daemon]

ugh

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not sure about Flower. As a master batsman of spin, I struggle with the claims he was a poor keeper myself.

Stewart definitely.

There's rumours floating around about Ames that are also fiercely denied (a pioneer for sure - but didn't start the continuation of the trend).

The irony is how swiftly Sri Lankan wicket keepers still are to get rid of the gloves. From Tilikiratne, to Sanga to Chandimal - they are not able to get rid of them fast enough.

Aus had Wayne Philips in the 1980's so Gilly hardly even started it for them.

Watling took up the gloves after a long long time just to get back into intl cricket.

You've said this before, despite clearly never actually having seen him keep. He wasn't good. This is widely accepted. He talked about his poor keeping himself during interviews as well.

Okay. Stewart plus flower then Gilchrist. I'm wrong on this point. It was a shift in the game that occurred around Gilchrists time and while he was a part of it he wasn't a pioneer.

I guess Gilchrist was the first one to actually do it well. Flower was a great bat but not really a keeper, Stewart was an ok keeper and solid bat.

Gilchrist though was an excellent keeper and outstanding batsman. Averaged 50+ almost his whole career, 60+ for the first few years too.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You've said this before, despite clearly never actually having seen him keep. He wasn't good. This is widely accepted. He talked about his poor keeping himself during interviews as well.

It really isn't.

I have looked for articles written in the 1990's before Gilly's prominence about Flower's keeping being sub-standard and I've found zilch.

What I have found is forums in more recent times of GIlly fans claiming this. Even on PakPassion of all places.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It really isn't.

I have looked for articles written in the 1990's before Gilly's prominence about Flower's keeping being sub-standard and I've found zilch.

What I have found is forums of GIlly fans claiming this. Even on PakPassion of all places.

Ugh don't try to argue against a widely accepted fact just because you don't want to believe it.

 

[Starfighter]

Just looked up his stats didn't realise you were talking about his actual ODI stats. Clearly it helped, but that's just a case of luck of the draw which always plays a big role in such a small sample size (only batted 10 times, and dismissed once).

It isn't a case of luck of the draw though. Being not out meant that his number of dismissals was so small it raised his batting average above his highest score. It's a real effect. It raises the question, is the effect not-outs raising you average smaller or bigger than the effect of the runs foregone when not out?

I don't expect anyone to answer, considering my previous attempts at asking straightforward questions have gone awry. But I tend toward the boosting effect being greater than the foregoing effect myself, especially for nos. five-six and below.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Ugh don't try to argue against a widely accepted fact just because you don't want to believe it.

I'm not trying argue against it. I am merely trying to identify if it was indeed a widely accepted fact of the time in the 1990's, or a subsequent invention post Gilly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It isn't a case of luck of the draw though. Being not out meant that his number of dismissals was so small it raised his batting average above his highest score. It's a real effect. It raises the question, is the effect not-outs raising you average smaller or bigger than the effect of the runs foregone when not out?

I don't expect anyone to answer, considering my previous attempts at asking straightforward questions have gone awry. But I tend toward the boosting effect being greater than the foregoing effect myself, especially for nos. five-six and below.

No it's not. It happened with him because it is a ridiculously small sample size. Give him 100 innings and he wouldn't stay not out in 90% of his innings. His average would normalise around where it would belong, say 4-5, regardless of not outs.

I'm not trying argue against it. I am merely trying to identify if it was indeed a widely accepted fact of the time in the 1990's, or a subsequent invention post Gilly.

That's absurd. You sound paranoid that there are pro-gilly fanatics running around trying to retroactively denounce Flower because they want him to be a pioneer. So absurd.

 

[Borges]

Jack Russell missing out to Alec Stewart for the best part of a decade before Gilly debut'd

There are several earlier examples.
For instance, Bob Taylor vs knott, two great keepers.
Or the selection of either Engineer or Kunderan as the keeper for India, based on better current batting form.
Etc.

Long ago, on a tour to India, England played two wicket keepers in the eleven: Knott, who kept and a Roger Tolchard who was supposed to play spin well (Taylor was not even picked as the reserve keeper). I watched one of those games; this Tolchard's idea of playing spin was to run at every ball; needless to say, he was not particularly successful.