Test XI for The Last Quarter Century

[srbhkshk]

I think they constitute a higher percentage of wickets that fall as a result of an increase in bowling strike rate- we could see the balance shift even if we don't see the actual batting average of tailenders shift.

True, the average number of wickets falling has increased from 11.98 to 13.45. I think that's pretty much the gist of analysis. The average increases are really not all that much as you had expect them to be from the average score increase, but one you factor in the top order batsman scoring about 20 runs extra quicker and the lower order actually getting a bit of chance to score 20-30 extra. That's your increase.

 

[TheJediBrah]

True, the average number of wickets falling has increased from 11.98 to 13.45. I think that's pretty much the gist of analysis. The average increases are really not all that much as you had expect them to be from the average score increase, but one you factor in the top order batsman scoring about 20 runs quicker and the lower order actually getting a bit of chance to score 20-30 extra. That's your increase.

It took teams long enough to realise that you can get higher scores by being willing to risk losing more wickets didn't it lol

Seems obvious in hindsight

 

[Bolo]

Ya, this is the argument I assumed Miyagi was making considering he was talking about strike rates. Plus the fact that it is not implicitly wrong.

Seems to have less impact than the runouts though. That change is surprisingly big.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Your factual error created a mathematical impossibly.

No.

You can't possibly believe a change in the number of extras will lead to a significant (as mentioned) change?

Believe?

Bolo, sort your argument out. It is either a mathematical impossibility or it is a question of belief.

Choose one.

If you choose mathematical impossibility. You're quite wrong.

If it is about belief. I told you what I believed and what I saw could be possible already. I don't have all the facts. So anything is possible within the realms of mathematical possibility.

So this just goes round and round in circles.

 

[Bolo]

It took teams long enough to realise that you can get higher scores by being willing to risk losing more wickets didn't it lol

Seems obvious in hindsight

Where were you with this statement when Kepler Wessels was captaining RSA? Runs in the first 40 overs are not important... We want 8 wickets in hand so we can up the rate in the last 10 and bat for 50. So dense.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Just to put some numbers -

% Change in bowling average since 80s - 6.4%
% Change in batting average since 80s - 11.6% (Adjusting for the lower rate of run-outs - 6.3%)
% Change in top 7 batting average since 80s - 13.8% (Adjusting for the lower rate of run-outs - 8.4%)

As Bolo said, it's really the top order batting which has benefited more - although just by numbers even that is rather small.

Change it to top 5 - does it spike more :P

And top 4 and top 3. :P

 

[Bolo]

No.




Believe?

Bolo, sort your argument out. It is either a mathematical impossibility or it is a question of belief.

Choose one.

If you choose mathematical impossibility. You're quite wrong.

If it is about belief. I told you what I believed and what I saw could be possible already. I don't have all the facts. So anything is possible within the realms of mathematical possibility.

So this just goes round and round in circles.

Not anymore it doesn't. I'm done.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Not anymore it doesn't. I'm done.

Fine choice sir. Enjoy your Friday

 

[Daemon]

Yeah I feel like batting averages for the top 5 should have gone up in recent times.

Maybe we shouldn't use the 80s as the cut off point because it gives less weightage to what we consider modern ODIs.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Yeah I feel like batting averages for the top 5 should have gone up in recent times.

Maybe we shouldn't use the 80s as the cut off point because it gives less weightage to what we consider modern ODIs.

Yeah I was just using 90's to now. Although 80's are good to show just how much Viv was beyond his peers.

 

[Starfighter]

Where were you with this statement when Kepler Wessels was captaining RSA? Runs in the first 40 overs are not important... We want 8 wickets in hand so we can up the rate in the last 10 and bat for 50. So dense.

That strategy caused some interesting collapses when it leaked over into the second innings.

 

[srbhkshk]

Yeah I feel like batting averages for the top 5 should have gone up in recent times.

Maybe we shouldn't use the 80s as the cut off point because it gives less weightage to what we consider modern ODIs.

The increase is actually less than top 7, 13.1% to 13.8% for 10s/80s and 8.5% to 9.9% for 10s/90s.

 

[Bolo]

That strategy caused some interesting collapses when it leaked over into the second innings.

Par for the course for Rsa in the early 90s I think. Considering his his ponderous batting and woeful captaincy, I'd like to nominate him for the worst ODI player ever.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Par for the course for Rsa in the early 90s I think. Considering his his ponderous batting and woeful captaincy, I'd like to nominate him for the worst ODI player ever.

Wow, that is a big call.

I raise, you Jeff Crowe.

Jeff Crowe | New Zealand Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPNcricinfo

Jeff even upped the ante in test cricket, as if ODI cricket failings were not enough, he recalled TOTAB in 1987 after the Aussie umpire gave him out who went on to make 205, and Aus win the test. Aus graced Jeff's actions with typical humility in a series of the 'infamous" Dyer catch off Andrew Jones (seriously youtube this), Dick French denied the most blatant series-saving Danny Morrisson LBW shout (also youtube)and Whitney saw off Hadlee. Mike Whitney has lent the ball to Hadlee till he dies, 'onya Mike.

NZ may historically suck at cricket, but Jeff Crowe as captain is a rare thing that not many will understand fully. It wasn't until 1989/90 and his international career all but over for any significance, that he started to look the goods in domestic.

His final ODI - in red hot form domestically, a bright and breezy 28(100)

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...land-vs-australia-final-rothmans-cup-1989-90/

He averaged
21.73 is Aus
14 in Pak
19 in WI and a whoppping

23.57 in NZ at home.

25.7 @ 62

He lead from the front like noone else I know of. Holdup, Geoff Howarth is calling.

18 in Aus
22 in NZ
9 in WI
23 in SL

and 23 @ 60 overall.

It is Jeff vs Geoff. Shall I adjust for eras?

 

[Starfighter]

Wow, that is a big call.

I raise, you Jeff Crowe.

Jeff Crowe | New Zealand Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPNcricinfo

How the **** did Jeff Crowe ever become captain when he was that rubbish a batsman? Was it a case of choose anyone but a bowler (i.e. Hadlee)?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Par for the course for Rsa in the early 90s I think. Considering his his ponderous batting and woeful captaincy, I'd like to nominate him for the worst ODI player ever.

That's why we sent him back

How the **** did Jeff Crowe ever become captain when he was that rubbish a batsman? Was it a case of choose anyone but a bowler (i.e. Hadlee)?

nepotism

 

[Mr Miyagi]

How the **** did Jeff Crowe ever become captain when he was that rubbish a batsman? Was it a case of choose anyone but a bowler (i.e. Hadlee)?

No. It was actually because NZ valued his overseas experience for Adelaide, I think.Plus his father was pretty influential and Martin was quite brilliant as all could see. To fill in the blanks is unknowns. But I edited to include Geoff Howarth, which was pretty dire (but he was a county pro who had had a good test career as well). Have a look at my edit.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

That's why we sent him back


nepotism

I actually think it was more NZ "small timeness"in over valuing overseas experience. NZ lost Turner to overseas in the 1970's and there was I think this vibe that overseas pros were smarter cricketers than NZ amateurs. The irony is, some of the cricketers that got overseas weren't our best, and some that didn't were.

NZ cricket at this time was dumb in looking to Aus and England as the be all and end all, when talent is talent and we could actually produce our own on our own. It started before WW2, it took until Chris Cairns in NZ to probably to realise that it was all bollocks and that a player is only as good as a player is (you have to remember HAdlee says he was so good because of County Cricket ad nauseam - this stuff has a wider effect than the intended meaning), regardless of where he plays. England and Aussie always knew this. But we were small time.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

How the **** did Jeff Crowe ever become captain when he was that rubbish a batsman? Was it a case of choose anyone but a bowler (i.e. Hadlee)?

Hadlee didn't want captaincy, he wanted third man and a straight mid off, and just cared about his stats. After the Alfa in Australia in 1986, he was in no position to succeed Coney.

Why it didn't go straight to Wright or even Martin, I do not know.

It wouldn't goto Chats, it may have gone to Snedden but he was fringe in tests, and J Bracewell was competing with Boock still and not a universal leader (M Crowe and him disliked each other allegedly reported) as a bowler.

 

[Starfighter]

and just cared about his stats.

Ooooohhhhhhh...