• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Best English Batsman Since 1990?

weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
deira said:
i dont under why Gooch only had 8 test centuries pre 1990, i mean he was playing since the mid 70's.
Click to expand...
Exactly, that is what I tried to say. If he has an overall average of 42 and an average of over 60 after 1990 then he must have been a mediocre performer (I didn't say mediocre player) till 1990. I doubt whether Thorpe had such a long period of mediocre performance....If someone tries to say that is because Gooch had to face the West Indian attack then I would ask what was he doing with the other attacks, then?....And the bowlers Thorpe had to face...the likes of Akram, Mcgrath, Murali, Warne, Donal, Pollock, Akram, Kumble etc. were no mean.
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Saying Gooch played from the mid-70s misses out on the fact that he served a long suspension for going on a 'Rebel' SA tour.

Also the players that are mentioned that Thorpe had to face, Gooch would have (or did) perform well against. None of them were the type of bowler similar to his nemesis, Terry Alderman.

Another reason why Gooch is ranked higher than Thorpe, IMO, is that he was a colossus of the English domestic game at a time when it was far more important than today. He dominated in FC and List A cricket.

Gooch had his failings and his dour demeaner didnt help his as captain, but he was by far the best England batsman of the last 20 years.
 
Olwe

Olwe

School Boy/Girl Captain
i would say Thorpe is, but it cold have been Ramps if he played up to his standerd early and hopfuly he will show the sellectors what they have missed over the last few years if he is picked for the home tour from SA as he was not picked for NZ which i believe was the wrong desition.
 
weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
:laugh: Trescothick? In Tests?! :blink:
Click to expand...
He probably meant Thorpe in tests and Trescothick in ODIs. Trescothick in Odis is quite acceptable till now since Pietersen hasn't played that many matches. But Thorpe in tests is a bit debatable....Gooch will be better than Thorpe after 1990s.
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Olwe said:
i would say Thorpe is, but it cold have been Ramps if he played up to his standerd early and hopfuly he will show the sellectors what they have missed over the last few years if he is picked for the home tour from SA as he was not picked for NZ which i believe was the wrong desition.
Click to expand...
Could have been Ramps but should have been Hick. Ive no doubt that with current qualification standards he would be one of the Worlds top players, then or now.

Obviously he isnt and wasnt but I think a lot was needed to **** him up and England and fate managed it.
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
weldone said:
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.
Click to expand...
What I said is that overall career averages mean little. I honestly couldn't care less that Thorpe's mark was 44 and Gooch's 42, because over 110 Tests there's enough that's going to change to make these stats pretty meaningless.

The "main" part of Gooch's career was not significantly worse than Thorpe's. Gooch's "Indian-summer" period was far, far better than Thorpe's. Had said Indian-summers not happened, there might be case for calling Thorpe's the better career. As it is, I've absolutely no doubt Gooch's was.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
weldone said:
Exactly, that is what I tried to say. If he has an overall average of 42 and an average of over 60 after 1990 then he must have been a mediocre performer (I didn't say mediocre player) till 1990. I doubt whether Thorpe had such a long period of mediocre performance
Click to expand...
Gooch's performances 1978-1988 were very far from mediocre. Very far from it.
If someone tries to say that is because Gooch had to face the West Indian attack then I would ask what was he doing with the other attacks, then?
Click to expand...
Gooch performed against all attacks in the initial part of his career, other than Australia. It's not like he performed against West Indies and did nothing against others.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
All the converse so far has been about Tests (combining Tests, ODIs and T20Is tells you approximately nothing of note) and the notion that Trescothick is England's best Test batsman since 1990 is nought but utterly laughable.

There have been at least 11 (Gooch, Atherton, Strauss, Smith, Hussain, Vaughan, Stewart, Thorpe, and almost certainly before too long Cook, Bell and Pietersen) better than him since said date.
 
NUFAN

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
I wouldn't say Hussain has been better then Trescothick..

Also jpeeling it's not really great adding Twenty20 stats, it's not fair for the newer players as averages aren't that important. Same could be said with ODIs to some extent.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
jpeeling said:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...al1=span;team=1;template=results;type=batting

Ok here's the Test stats, he's fourth highest scorer and sixth highest average of which Gower, Gooch, Pietersen and Cook are in some way or another exempt.

I'm not saying Threscothick is the best batsman but he should be a credible contender rather than being laughed at.

Having said that my choice would be Thorpe with Threscothick and Stewart just behind.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware what the averages are; being a good batsman is not purely and simply about what goes in the overall scorebook. There's far more to it than that.

And for a fair few reasons, I'd place Trescothick below the 11 batsmen I said I'd place him below.
 
NUFAN

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Richard said:
Why not?

Hussain actually scored runs rather than mostly depending on a fielder giving him a life (or two... or three...) to get them.
Click to expand...
Mostly depending on a fielder to score runs, lmao.

It's no coincidence that England haven't been the same team since Trescothick stopped playing Test Matches.

.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
NUFAN said:
Mostly depending on a fielder to score runs, lmao.
Click to expand...
Yes. A large Trescothick innings not involving a dropped catch has been an extreme rarity.
It's no coincidence that England haven't been the same team since Trescothick stopped playing Test Matches.
Click to expand...
England have been poor in Tests for plenty of Trescothick's career too.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
shortpitched713 said:
So now we're contending that non first chance runs are not runs at all. :wacko:
Click to expand...
No, merely that chanceless runs are runs completely earnt, runs scored after let-offs have only been scored because of the let-offs. Hence, chanceless runs are worth far, far more when assessing a batsman's performance than runs scored after a let-off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top