Not With a Bang...

[SJS]

4. Arthur Nourse

Nourse was in his 41st year when he led South Africa on a tour of England in 1951. He was run out for a magnificent 208 in the first tests which took his career aggregate to 2867 runs at 59.7.

He was expected to easily score the 133 runs he needed to become only the second batsman after Bruce Mitchell reach 3000 Test runs in the four Tests to follow.

In the next three Tests he scored

• 20 and 3
• 29 and 20
• 13

He was now at 2952 and still 48 short.

He scored 4 and 4 in his last two innings of his last test !

His career average fell from nearly 60 to 53.8 !

 

[BoyBrumby]

Thanks, SJS, that's genuinely interesting to know.

I think such "insider" knowledge is important when one attempts (and we on CW are now doing in the rank the batsmen/bowler threads) to rate great players against each other. A player's career average is possibly the first thing that catches the eye and often can almost hide as much as it illuminates.

It's particularly interesting when comparing players whose careers have ended and their performances have tailed off a bit (as with the gentlemen you refer to) towards the end of their playing lives with contemporary players who may be at the very zenith of their powers.

How will the Pontings and Kallises feature in ten or even twenty years time, one wonders? Had we attempted to rank the batsmen even two years ago I suspect Dravid's name would've featured, but now I can't recall one vote for him.

 

[SJS]

5. Rohan Kanhai

• Career : 6227 runs
  
• Last Test : 2 and 7

6. Zaheer Abbas
Zaheer reached his 5000th Test run in his 72nd Test match - 5015 runs at 47.8

He played another six Test matches for Pakistan and scored

• 2
• 14 and 3
• 6 and 12
• 6 and 0
• 4

A grand total of 47 runs in 8 innings at under six each !

 

[SJS]

Thanks, SJS, that's genuinely interesting to know.

I think such "insider" knowledge is important when one attempts (and we on CW are now doing in the rank the batsmen/bowler threads) to rate great players against each other. A player's career average is possibly the first thing that catches the eye and often can almost hide as much as it illuminates.

It's particularly interesting when comparing players whose careers have ended and their performances have tailed off a bit (as with the gentlemen you refer to) towards the end of their playing lives with contemporary players who may be at the very zenith of their powers.

How will the Pontings and Kallises feature in ten or even twenty years time, one wonders? Had we attempted to rank the batsmen even two years ago I suspect Dravid's name would've featured, but now I can't recall one vote for him.

Absolutely.

Most of us find it difficult to 'disconnect' our current feeling about a player with his overall career. Look at Sachin it is amazing how many people here are talking of him in such glowing terms. I can vividly recall how he was berated here when he was out of form. That is exactly the reason why we should try and develop a capacity to assess a player beyond his stats - good or bad. Its not as difficult as it sounds but for that one has to understand that stats can only help in enhancing your understanding of a player but they can not and should not be the basis of your opinion of him.

I try and say it to people some times but then give up

 

[SJS]

The Bowlers

Graham McKenzie

• 238 wkts in 54 Tests at 27.9
• 8 wkts in next 6 Tests at 85.5 each including 1 for 139 in the last Test

Prasanna Erapalli

• 186 wickets in 46 Tests at 28.9 each
• In the last three tests he had

• 1 for 116
• 2 for 157
• 0 for 94

A total of 4 wickets for 367 at 91.75 each !

 

[SJS]

Chandrashekhar

• 241 wickets in 56 Tests at 28.9 each
  [*]1 for 227 in the last two !

 

[Richard]

Absolutely.

Most of us find it difficult to 'disconnect' our current feeling about a player with his overall career. Look at Sachin it is amazing how many people here are talking of him in such glowing terms. I can vividly recall how he was berated here when he was out of form. That is exactly the reason why we should try and develop a capacity to assess a player beyond his stats - good or bad.

And also to remember that to assess a player whose career is still in motion and compare him to one who's retired is not the wisest task.

 

[Richard]

Fairly natural if you think about it. Even the best players decline in ability as time wears on, and more often than not they're "retiring" because the selectors have identified this and tapped them on the shoulder. A glorious final innings, would be a blip in the form of the player in these circumstances.

Yup. Far more players than not tend to have a short bad phase at the end of their careers. That's why, if a player has had a long and distinguished career, I tend to ignore such short final phases completely.

 

[wpdavid]

One of the sadder finales from an English pov was Bob Willis's struggle in the first 3 tests against WI in 1984. He managed 2 wickets a test for plenty and was patently past it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

One of the sadder finales from an English pov was Bob Willis's struggle in the first 3 tests against WI in 1984. He managed 2 wickets a test for plenty and was patently past it.

From memory Goughy's final two tests versus SA in 2003 were similar. Had lost a yard (had more or less no knees by that stage I think) and was a ghost of summers past.

Often wonder if the selectors "had a word" so The Dazzler was allowed the fig leaf of going on his own terms but would've had the decision taken from him had he stayed on.

Ironically his old mucker Candy Addick signed off with 10 wickets in an SCG test, which must be one of our better bowling au reviors, but was never selected again despite never officially retiring from tests.

 

[The Sean]

One of the sadder finales from an English pov was Bob Willis's struggle in the first 3 tests against WI in 1984. He managed 2 wickets a test for plenty and was patently past it.

Very similar to Thommo in England the following year, who signed of with 3/201 over two Tests - not the way he deserved to go out.

Clarrie Grimmett was the complete opposite, taking 44 wickets in South Africa in 1935/36, and then never getting picked again!

 

[wpdavid]

From memory Goughy's final two tests versus SA in 2003 were similar. Had lost a yard (had more or less no knees by that stage I think) and was a ghost of summers past.

Often wonder if the selectors "had a word" so The Dazzler was allowed the fig leaf of going on his own terms but would've had the decision taken from him had he stayed on.

Ironically his old mucker Candy Addick signed off with 10 wickets in an SCG test, which must be one of our better bowling au reviors, but was never selected again despite never officially retiring from tests.

Aye - we always knew summer had arrived when Caddick announced that he should be back in the test side, prefereably instead of some nohoper like Hoggard or Jones.

And dead right about Gough. Possibly even less flattering figures than Willis 20 years previously.

 

[Richard]

With Gough it's very conceivable that had he returned to the Test team 2 games later than he did and played on a couple of rank seamers rather than rank runways he'd have remained in the team for another year or two. When fit, that is.

Gough was no less a bowler later on in his career, he just wasn't capable of sustained fitness from 2002 onwards.

 

[slugger]

Great thread.

Leaving cricket unbefitting of a wonderful test cricketer for Australia was Ian Healy. For close to a decade and 119 test matches, Ian Healy was one of the finest wicketkeeper/batsman the game has ever seen. To end his career in a meaningless one off test match in Harare, Zimbabwae was not the send off worthy of acknowledging his wonderful contribution to Australian cricket.

Made 5 runs, and shelled a couple of catches. Next game in Brisbane was famously the debut of Adam Gilchrist.

also ian healy's last match was the 1st of the 15 match test winnig streak.

 

[Noble One]

Not one of the greats of the game, but a fine batsman for Australia in Kim Hughes. Had been a rock in the Australian middle order for 6/7 years. Played some fighting, memorable innings over his time.

Hughes ended with a pair in his final test match. Worse the 2nd innings was a golden duck. This ended a wretched series for Hughes after averaging 10.12 over 4 test matches against the mighty West Indian pace bowling attack.

A season before that, Hughes was Test captain. The sustained fall over a year of Kim Hughes coincided with the dark times ahead for Australian cricket.

 

[Craig]

Marcus Trescothick did not have the best of Test matches with only 6 and 4 in the famous 'Ovalgate' Test.

 

[Richard]

Not one of the greats of the game, but a fine batsman for Australia in Kim Hughes. Had been a rock in the Australian middle order for 6/7 years. Played some fighting, memorable innings over his time.

Hughes ended with a pair in his final test match. Worse the 2nd innings was a golden duck. This ended a wretched series for Hughes after averaging 10.12 over 4 test matches against the mighty West Indian pace bowling attack.

A season before that, Hughes was Test captain. The sustained fall over a year of Kim Hughes coincided with the dark times ahead for Australian cricket.

Well Hughes' freefall coincided exactly with the start of it. And his decision - along with Yallop, Wessels and Alderman (and maybe Haysman as well) - to go on Rebel tours accentuated the retirements of Chappell, Marsh and Lillee to gut the side. It was no surprise that they went as dreadfully as they did 1984-1988/89.

 

[SJS]

Very similar to Thommo in England the following year, who signed of with 3/201 over two Tests - not the way he deserved to go out.

Clarrie Grimmett was the complete opposite, taking 44 wickets in South Africa in 1935/36, and then never getting picked again!

Grimmett should have definitely played another series - 1938 Ashes series under Bradman.. It was just that Bradman did not want him and when the Don made up his mind on such things, nothing could be done.

 

[bagapath]

jason gillespie's 201* in his last test innings should mean something!

 

[SJS]

jason gillespie's 201* in his last test innings should mean something!

Sure although I honestly believe that Gillespie was discovering the batsman in him and had his career been longer we would have seen more very good batting from him.