The legacy of Chris Cairns

[Burgey]

Yeah very grim news indeed about his health. That's just a shocking thing to have happen to anyone.

I say this with all no disrespect to the Kiwi side of his time, but he was probably the one player of theirs I feared when they played Aus. Bond too, obviously but sadly he was rarely if ever fit. Cairns though was a genuine X factor player. Could play some blinding knocks when the mood took him and was a threat with the ball. I suppose the criticism of him back then was the mood didn't always take him often enough. But he was a genuinely test-standard fast bowling all-rounder, and they aren't exactly thick on the ground.

 

[NZTailender]

Gosh, hope he pulls through but it's not looking good. Growing up he was my favourite cricketer and my inspiration. Tragic figure, overall

 

[Bahnz]

Not even close to being an ATG . He was far below the cricketer as his Father was. Probably Lance Cairns could be considered as one of greatest cricketers New Zealand has ever had.

I mean, Cairns wasn't an ATG certainly. But he was a far better bowler than Lance, and their respective batting abilities aren't even comparable. Cairns hit 6 test 100's and averaged 33. Lance's highest score was 64 and he never even passed 1000 career runs.

 

[JBMAC]

I mean, Cairns wasn't an ATG certainly. But he was a far better bowler than Lance, and their respective batting abilities aren't even comparable. Cairns hit 6 test 100's and averaged 33. Lance's highest score was 64 and he never even passed 1000 career runs.

Once again you are quoting "stats" like so many others here. Lance Cairns was a game breaker and his "stats" do not do justice to his place in the hierarchy of NZ cricket

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Genuine question - which games did Lance break?

 

[mr_mister]

He hit the 6 sixes in 9 balls or whatever but NZ still lost that game handily

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Yeah that's the game I know about, Tim Southee did something like that as well.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Genuine question - which games did Lance break?

Headingley test 1984 springs to ming ... but still a bizarre post, Chris was definitely the superior of the two.

 

[Bahnz]

Once again you are quoting "stats" like so many others here. Lance Cairns was a game breaker and his "stats" do not do justice to his place in the hierarchy of NZ cricket

I'm not 100% sure why stats is in quotation marks, but even setting that aside Lance just wasn't that good a cricketer. I mean he was memorable, but calling him a greater "game breaker" (see appropriate use of quotation marks) is absurd. Chris won NZ a Champions Trophy, he pretty much single-handedly sealed their 2nd series victory in England. He scored 341 runs in a 3 test series against Australia at the absolute peak of their powers. He hit (at that time) more 6's than any other player in history. He crushed 150 against South Africa to set up what is still NZ's only home test win against them since reintroduction.

Lance was a plucky journeyman with broad shoulders who benefited greatly from bowling in Hadlee's slipstream. He had the odd good day (in particular he bowled NZ to their first test win in England in 1983) and was certainly entertaining to watch with the bat in a Tim Southee kinda way, but ultimately he wasn't anything special. Chris was, even if he didn't ultimately live up to his full potential. This is not my opinion. This is the opinion of pretty much every commentator who watched both Cairns men play.

 

[honestbharani]

Cairns was someone who made the game very watchable which was rare for a kiwi player of the 90s. Very sad to hear

 

[_00_deathscar]

Said the other day that it’s weird he’s so underrated. Absolute force of a player but maybe not consistent enough at times.

Hope he pulls through.

 

[thierry henry]

Statistically quite comparable to Dev maybe, but with less games? Factoring in conditions played in, possibly a slightly lesser bowler and slightly more genuine batsman?

Also quite similar to Flintoff but IMO a better batsman AND bowler (controversial?)

 

[Bahnz]

Statistically quite comparable to Dev maybe, but with less games? Factoring in conditions played in, possibly a slightly lesser bowler and slightly more genuine batsman?

Also quite similar to Flintoff but IMO a better batsman AND bowler (controversial?)

Very similar to Flintoff imo. Both wonderfully talented players whose careers were affected by attitude and fitness issues. Both of whom looked sensational for a brief peak (Flintoff 04-06, Cairns 98-01). I think Cairns had more with the bat, but Flintoff was definitely the superior bowler (at least if we're measuring their respective peaks).

 

[sunilz]

What are some of the memorable series performances by Cairns as an all rounder?

 

[thierry henry]

Very similar to Flintoff imo. Both wonderfully talented players whose careers were affected by attitude and fitness issues. Both of whom looked sensational for a brief peak (Flintoff 04-06, Cairns 98-01). I think Cairns had more with the bat, but Flintoff was definitely the superior bowler (at least if we're measuring their respective peaks).

I strongly disagree on the bowling bit. Flintoff's bowling record with the red ball is underwhelming across the board (which is well known and often mentioned tbf). He was both relatively lightly bowled (less than 3wpm) but also not a strike bowler (mediocre strike rate and average).

Cairns was not just better overall, he was much more destructive and much more of a wicket taker at his peak. I'd also say that Cairns could more aptly be described as a bowling all-rounder, because he was quite often NZ's leading new ball bowler.

 

[mr_mister]

@sunilz Got 19 wickets and a very important 80 in the '99 series vs England

Enough to get him man of the series

 

[Bahnz]

I strongly disagree on the bowling bit. Flintoff's bowling record with the red ball is underwhelming across the board (which is well known and often mentioned tbf). He was both relatively lightly bowled (less than 3wpm) but also not a strike bowler (mediocre strike rate and average).

Cairns was not just better overall, he was much more destructive and much more of a wicket taker at his peak. I'd also say that Cairns could more aptly be described as a bowling all-rounder, because he was quite often NZ's leading new ball bowler.

The later point I agree with. He had a harder gig than Flintoff certainly. But I've always considered that his bowling stats flatter him, seeing as he took about 30% of his career wickets against Zimbang. Flintoff's record is significantly more consistent - averaging no higher than 37 and no lower than 25 against the major nations. He's probably helped out in that by the fact that he played a ton of cricket when he was at his peak (he played 37 tests in the 3-year window I mentioned, whereas Cairns only played 20 tests during his own peak between 99-01).

 

[thierry henry]

The later point I agree with. He had a harder gig than Flintoff certainly. But I've always considered that his bowling stats flatter him, seeing as he took about 30% of his career wickets against Zimbang. Flintoff's record is significantly more consistent - averaging no higher than 37 and no lower than 25 against the major nations. He's probably helped out in that by the fact that he played a ton of cricket when he was at his peak (he played 37 tests in the 3-year window I mentioned, whereas Cairns only played 20 tests during his own peak between 99-01).

Fair enough. Guess that doesn't really cover Flintoff in glory but might mean Cairns just wasn't that good of a bowler. To me as a fan during that era I probably didn't care if he was doing most of his good work against lesser opposition because we cherished any success in those days.

 

[Anil]

did he have a heart attack? the report says he is on life support...

 

[TheJediBrah]

Flintoff at his peak was a better batsman and bowler, but he had a lot of mediocrity outside it. Cairns maintained a decent standard more-or-less throughout his career.