why dont english enjoy oneday cricket?

[Richard]

Thought Greg Ritchie and Geoff Marsh weren't too bad myself?

 

[The Sean]

Thought Greg Ritchie and Geoff Marsh weren't too bad myself?

Always liked both myself - but with seven centuries from 80 Tests between them and averages in the low-mid 30s each, they were hardly the runscoring machines we've been blessed with for the past decade and a half. Fat cat was the more talented, but Marsh was more consistent over a longer period.

Marsh was actually an excellent ODI player - his memory today is overshadowed by the brilliance we've gotten used to at the top of the order with likes of Waugh, Gilchrist and Hayden, but his record was superb and he did a great job for us.

 

[Richard]

Marsh was actually a fine servant in poor times, though, wasn't he? His average declined rapidly at, ironically, the time the team started to move upwards.

Ritchie's average of 36 always struck me as decent service at a difficult time. Compared to the likes of Wood, Hilditch and the fly-by-night-useless types, he did a pretty good job, no?

Granted, the fact that players like Ritchie (and Wood, and Hilditch) are your best players means you're always going to struggle.

 

[The Sean]

Marsh was actually a fine servant in poor times, though, wasn't he? His average declined rapidly at, ironically, the time the team started to move upwards.

Ritchie's average of 36 always struck me as decent service at a difficult time. Compared to the likes of Wood, Hilditch and the fly-by-night-useless types, he did a pretty good job, no?

Granted, the fact that players like Ritchie (and Wood, and Hilditch) are your best players means you're always going to struggle.

"Fine servant" is a good way to describe him - and don't get me wrong, Boon and Marsh remains one of my all time favourite opening partnerships, but when you consider he got 4 Test tons, Ritchie got 3, Hilditch got a couple, John Dyson weighed in with 3 I think...you can't help but compare it to recent years where even our second-ranked batsmen are hitting a dozen Test centuries or more, let alone our best players all with 20+ (even taking into account the fact that more cricket is played these days).

It did actually make you appreciate the big innings more back in those days, because they came along relatively so rarely.

 

[four_or_six]

In the 'modern' era (post 1950):

...

What exactly is the point of this post? I have no freaking idea. I just found it interesting. Someone better be appreciative though.

This is amazing! If you do the same for ODIs, does it match with where the ODI game is less popular?

 

[Richard]

"Fine servant" is a good way to describe him - and don't get me wrong, Boon and Marsh remains one of my all time favourite opening partnerships, but when you consider he got 4 Test tons, Ritchie got 3, Hilditch got a couple, John Dyson weighed in with 3 I think...you can't help but compare it to recent years where even our second-ranked batsmen are hitting a dozen Test centuries or more, let alone our best players all with 20+ (even taking into account the fact that more cricket is played these days).

It did actually make you appreciate the big innings more back in those days, because they came along relatively so rarely.

Marsh's average was up at 40 for a fair time, though, yeah? Not much worse than the Taylors and Slaters of this World.

 

[The Sean]

Marsh's average was up at 40 for a fair time, though, yeah? Not much worse than the Taylors and Slaters of this World.

Yeah, but it ended at 33. Taylor's was 64 early on and high 40s - low 50s for a long time, and Slats was averaging 52 a couple of years into his career. I don't think you can take one player's highest point and compare it with another bloke's career average, given that his own highest point was considerably more than that too.

 

[silentstriker]

This is amazing! If you do the same for ODIs, does it match with where the ODI game is less popular?

Nope.

ODI Records:

India Home: 56%
India Away: 37%
Difference: 19%

Sri Lanka Home: 72%
Sri Lanka Away: 37%
Difference: 35%

Australia Home: 65%
Australia Away: 58%
Difference: 7%

West Indies Home: 64%
West Indies Away: 54%
Difference: 10%

England Home: 58%
England Away: 41%
Difference: 18%

South Africa Home: 73%
South Africa Away: 48%
Difference: 25%

Pakistan Home: 61%
Pakistan Away: 48%
Difference: 13%

New Zealand Home: 56%
New Zealand Away: 31%
Difference: 25%

Best Away Teams:

1. Australia (58%)
2. West Indies (54%)
3. South Africa (48%)
4. Pakistan (48%)
5. England (41%)
6. India (37%)
7. Sri Lanka (37%)
8. New Zealand (31%)

Best Home Teams

1. South Africa (73%)
2. Sri Lanka (72%)
3. Australia (65%)
4. West Indies (64%)
5. Pakistan (61%)
6. England (58%)
7. India (56%)
8. New Zealand (56%)

Relying on home advantage the most:

1. 35%: Sri Lanka
2. 25%: South Africa
3. 25%: New Zealand
4. 19%: India
5. 18%: England
6. 13%: Pakistan
7. 10%: West Indies
8. 7%: Australia

 

[Richard]

Yeah, but it ended at 33. Taylor's was 64 early on and high 40s - low 50s for a long time, and Slats was averaging 52 a couple of years into his career. I don't think you can take one player's highest point and compare it with another bloke's career average, given that his own highest point was considerably more than that too.

The point I was making is that Marsh's average came down as the team started to achieve successes. Taylor and Slater played for a team that lost virtually nothing throughout their careers.

Didn't know Taylor started so well, though.

 

[The Sean]

The point I was making is that Marsh's average came down as the team started to achieve successes. Taylor and Slater played for a team that lost virtually nothing throughout their careers.

Didn't know Taylor started so well, though.

Yeah mate, Tubby had a spectacular start to his Test career - that first Ashes series of his in '89 brought 839 runs alone.