Best English Batsman Since 1990?

[NUFAN]

Neither Habibul Bashar or Chaminda Vaas were either among the best batsmen since 1990 nor nearing the end of their career at any time early in the 1990s. What's your point?

Err.. They were examples of players nearing the end of there careers currently.

I'm asking why you wouldn't consider a player if they are nearing the end of the career.

 

[Richard]

As I said, it's nothing to do with being nearing the end of one's career or not. It's purely and simply down to who played and who didn't. I'd not count someone like Damien Martyn if the criteria was "before 1999" either, even though he did play and wasn't nearing the end of his career.

 

[kanga_kid]

show some heart

its easy to look at players as an average rather than the quality of biff in there bones, thats what Beefy Botham had.... 'BIFF' a touch of arogance and sheer determination, to take it back to the bowlers.
now as myself being an australian there are only a handful of british batsmen who i have any form of admiration or real fear of.one ....is Michael Vaughn
michael vaughn....stood up when playing on the biggest scale, and against the biggest challanges, vaughn had grace and power. that gave us aussies headaches, vaughn was the first captain to regain the ashes in 20 years and out of those 20 years i beleive he may have been the only english captain the australian bowlers didnt send into retirement or dismissal from there possition.
im only an aussie but vaughns the man for me,
himself and paul collingwod are the only two batsmen us aussies have had any respect for in years. and therefor have to be up for nomination..

 

[sledger]

its easy to look at players as an average rather than the quality of biff in there bones, thats what Beefy Botham had.... 'BIFF' a touch of arogance and sheer determination, to take it back to the bowlers.
now as myself being an australian there are only a handful of british batsmen who i have any form of admiration or real fear of.one ....is Michael Vaughn
michael vaughn....stood up when playing on the biggest scale, and against the biggest challanges, vaughn had grace and power. that gave us aussies headaches, vaughn was the first captain to regain the ashes in 20 years and out of those 20 years i beleive he may have been the only english captain the australian bowlers didnt send into retirement or dismissal from there possition.
im only an aussie but vaughns the man for me,
himself and paul collingwod are the only two batsmen us aussies have had any respect for in years. and therefor have to be up for nomination..

good lord...


If this thread includes ODIs as well as Tests then the Englands best ODI batsman since 1990 is almost certainly Nick Knight, although poor old Marcus Trescothick must come close.

 

[Goughy]

Ya surely post 1990, Gooch's performance was better than Thorpe; no doubt about that. But overall, probably Thorpe will be a touch over Gooch.

Not a chance. I should probably add IMO

 

[weldone]

Not a chance. I should probably add IMO

I meant there's not much between them, Thorpe's average is more than 44, while Gooch's is 42. Thorpe faced no mean bowlers than Gooch did. And in 1990's, the pitches were not too batsman-friendly (unlike post 2000). Probably the only fact that goes with Gooch is that he played for a longer time......The choice between the two is very marginal. This statement seems shocking and the only reason is that Thorpe is underrated while Gooch is a touch overrated probably...

 

[sledger]

I wouldnt say Thorpe is at all underated really, I'd say the general consensus is that he is recognised as a highly accomplished player who was invaluable to England in his last few years as an international player.

 

[weldone]

Not a chance. I should probably add IMO

I meant there's not much between them, Thorpe's average is more than 44, while Gooch's is 42. Thorpe faced no mean bowlers than Gooch did. And in 1990's, the pitches were not too batsman-friendly (unlike post 2000). Probably the only fact that goes with Gooch is that he played for a longer time......The choice between the two is very marginal. This statement seems shocking and the only reason is that Thorpe is underrated while Gooch is a touch overrated probably...

 

[steds]

there are only a handful of british batsmen who i have any form of admiration or real fear of.one ....is Michael Vaughn

Don't have enough admiration to spell his name correctly, though.

 

[Richard]

I meant there's not much between them, Thorpe's average is more than 44, while Gooch's is 42. Thorpe faced no mean bowlers than Gooch did. And in 1990's, the pitches were not too batsman-friendly (unlike post 2000). Probably the only fact that goes with Gooch is that he played for a longer time......The choice between the two is very marginal. This statement seems shocking and the only reason is that Thorpe is underrated while Gooch is a touch overrated probably...

I meant there's not much between them, Thorpe's average is more than 44, while Gooch's is 42. Thorpe faced no mean bowlers than Gooch did. And in 1990's, the pitches were not too batsman-friendly (unlike post 2000). Probably the only fact that goes with Gooch is that he played for a longer time......The choice between the two is very marginal. This statement seems shocking and the only reason is that Thorpe is underrated while Gooch is a touch overrated probably...

Overall averages don't really tell you much in many cases, and this is like most.

Gooch's overall average doesn't really tell you that much, because as I mentioned earlier he was such an unusual specimin. He averaged 39 between 1978 and 1988, being one of probably only two England batsmen in that time who truly stood-up and was really counted against the West Indian seam-bowlers, averaging 42 (just above the overall point) at a time when there was never, once, a weak attack. Nor did he fail against any other team, with one exception: his record against the generally weaker Australians, though, remained disappointing. He failed to cash-in on the Packer-weakened side of 1978\79, and had an absolute shocker in 1981, before finally doing something real good and proper in the Sixth Test of 1985.

And everything about Gooch was corrected in the aforementioned Indian-summer of his career: between 1990 and the first Test of 1994, he averaged over 60, an astonishing achievement given he passed the age of 40 in that time. He scored against anyone and everyone, strong and weak, and inspired the generation that followed him, the Athertons, Hussains, Stewarts, Thorpes. Read what they have to say - everyone mentions how "Gooch was a colossus" or something along those lines.

Thorpe, on the other hand, averaged just under 42 for the greater part of his career. Like Gooch he had the odd poor series here and there (West Indies 1994, South Africa 1995\96, Zimbabwe 1996\97, South Africa 1998, New Zealand 1999). Then he too had an Indian-summer, but it was shorter than Gooch's and less impressive: in 23 innings (compared to Gooch's 64) he averaged 61 (Bangladesh excluded), the same as against Gooch but against far, far less impressive bowling. He then had an average final series in South Africa, as Gooch had two average final series.

I've never, ever countenanced the thought that Thorpe was a better player than Gooch TBH. The bowling at large during their careers was moderately similar, but Gooch had one standout attack amongst the other good ones (there really wasn't one such in Thorpe's career), and he performed against it where so many others failed.

And Gooch's Indian-summer, as I say, was far more impressive.

 

[shortpitched713]

If you're just looking at productivity as determined by average Ian Bell will soon be.

 

[Richard]

1, nah, I highly doubt he will.

2, overall averages determine little in terms of real productivity. One needs to look deeper.

 

[shortpitched713]

1, nah, I highly doubt he will.

2, overall averages determine little in terms of real productivity. One needs to look deeper.

Obviously I don't think that he'll actually be the best from the period in question, just that he'll average the highest. Obviously other considerations have to be taken into account like average runs per wicket scored in the period in which he has played, among others.

 

[haroon510]

it has to be between thorpe and marcus trescothick

 

[Richard]

Obviously I don't think that he'll actually be the best from the period in question, just that he'll average the highest. Obviously other considerations have to be taken into account like average runs per wicket scored in the period in which he has played, among others.

There's almost no way he'll have a better average than Cook or Pietersen, I doubt.

 

[Richard]

it has to be between thorpe and marcus trescothick

Trescothick? In Tests?!

 

[deira]

i dont under why Gooch only had 8 test centuries pre 1990, i mean he was playing since the mid 70's.

 

[shortpitched713]

There's almost no way he'll have a better average than Cook or Pietersen, I doubt.

He plays/will play at the best position out of them for mine 3/4 iinm.

 

[Richard]

i dont under why Gooch only had 8 test centuries pre 1990, i mean he was playing since the mid 70's.

Well, no, he was playing properly since 1978. One of the reasons was that he missed 3 years in that time due to a ban, and also picked-and-chose a couple of tours to skip.

Even so, he played something like 66(?) Tests between 1978 and 1988 (and 5 more in 1989 when he never looked like getting a century) and 8 centuries does seem an incongruously low number for someone averaging 39.

 

[weldone]

Overall averages don't really tell you much in many cases, and this is like most.

Gooch's overall average doesn't really tell you that much, because as I mentioned earlier he was such an unusual specimin. He averaged 39 between 1978 and 1988, being one of probably only two England batsmen in that time who truly stood-up and was really counted against the West Indian seam-bowlers, averaging 42 (just above the overall point) at a time when there was never, once, a weak attack. Nor did he fail against any other team, with one exception: his record against the generally weaker Australians, though, remained disappointing. He failed to cash-in on the Packer-weakened side of 1978\79, and had an absolute shocker in 1981, before finally doing something real good and proper in the Sixth Test of 1985.

And everything about Gooch was corrected in the aforementioned Indian-summer of his career: between 1990 and the first Test of 1994, he averaged over 60, an astonishing achievement given he passed the age of 40 in that time. He scored against anyone and everyone, strong and weak, and inspired the generation that followed him, the Athertons, Hussains, Stewarts, Thorpes. Read what they have to say - everyone mentions how "Gooch was a colossus" or something along those lines.

Thorpe, on the other hand, averaged just under 42 for the greater part of his career. Like Gooch he had the odd poor series here and there (West Indies 1994, South Africa 1995\96, Zimbabwe 1996\97, South Africa 1998, New Zealand 1999). Then he too had an Indian-summer, but it was shorter than Gooch's and less impressive: in 23 innings (compared to Gooch's 64) he averaged 61 (Bangladesh excluded), the same as against Gooch but against far, far less impressive bowling. He then had an average final series in South Africa, as Gooch had two average final series.

I've never, ever countenanced the thought that Thorpe was a better player than Gooch TBH. The bowling at large during their careers was moderately similar, but Gooch had one standout attack amongst the other good ones (there really wasn't one such in Thorpe's career), and he performed against it where so many others failed.

And Gooch's Indian-summer, as I say, was far more impressive.

What you tried to prove with that long post? If I got you right then you tried to say that both of them played against equal quality bowling, both had successes and failures but Gooch's successes were more than Thorpe's, right?....Simple arithmetic tells me 1 thing.....If Thorpe averaged 44 and Gooch 42, and if Gooch's successes were more than Thorpe's, his failures must also have been more than Thorpe's...........And by the way I did never say that Thorpe is a massively better player than Gooch, I only said that they were similar performers with slight differences, if any.