Stephen Fleming to retire from International Cricket

[pasag]

^Would be in esteemed company if falling only a few short of 7000.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I really hope he can get another century. Im always interested in the stats and Fleming has 9 test centuries at the moment but 10 looks so much more impressive than 9.

At the moment his average is 39.7 something. Did a bit of calculating and assuming he bats and gets out in all six innings of the series then he needs 285 more runs from those innings to finish with an average of 40 exactly. That would be fitting also.

The last thing is that he currently has 6875 test runs so with any luck he will make it to 7000 test runs. 7160, is the magic number to get an average of 40 so (assuming he is dismissed in all 6 innings

So Ill just be looking for those things. Itll be a shame to finish with 9 centuries, an average of 39.9 and 6999 runs. Almost enough to make you change your mind and stay on for another series

Was thinking, and wanting, the same.
7000 runs is the most likely. He basically needs a hundred to have decent shot at 40 average. Well, that or a couple of Fleming-esque high 50s.

Hopefully he can make a big not out hundred and get them all.

 

[Matt52]

Was thinking, and wanting, the same.
7000 runs is the most likely. He basically needs a hundred to have decent shot at 40 average. Well, that or a couple of Fleming-esque high 50s.

Hopefully he can make a big not out hundred and get them all.

He only needs that hundred doesnt he. After that a bunch of 30s and 40s will be enough. Hes got 6 bites at the cherry and Im quietly confident he'll get all three little career landmarks. Heres hoping

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

He only needs that hundred doesnt he. After that a bunch of 30s and 40s will be enough. Hes got 6 bites at the cherry and Im quietly confident he'll get all three little career landmarks. Heres hoping

Yeah, but I'd rather have him score a big not out 100 and get it out of the way...

 

[Flem274*]

I'll risk a griegy here and predict another double hundred

He's got two IIRC

 

[Somerset]

I'll risk a griegy here and predict another double hundred

He's got three IIRC

Two and a 192, quickly edit your post

 

[NZTailender]

I'll risk a griegy here and predict another double hundred

He's got two IIRC

No, he has three. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, South Africa.

 

[slugger]

i know one thing for sure .. on his last innings at least we dont have to see billy bowden run up and hug em.. before some if his playing mates get a chance.. hahaha

 

[Somerset]

No, he has three. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, South Africa.

Pays not to look at his record two years ago LOL.

 

[Tony]

Welcome to the forum Brett.

Fleming imo, though I still regard him as a fine player and a pretty incisive captain.

Still, as a leader imo so much depends on the cattle which you have that it isn't funny. I tend to think that he did pretty damn well with the sides he led.

I'd go with this as summing him up really.

 

[James]

IMO, Nathan Astle's and Chris Cairns' retirements were more of a loss than Fleming. Astle especially has a very smiliar record to Fleming and played 27 less Tests. Had Astle played the same number of Tests I have no doubt he would have averaged mid 40s and put Fleming's record to real shame (especially in 100/50 ratio).

It appears to me anyway from media reports that Fleming got really annoyed when he lost the captaincy to Vettori and he isn't prepared to work in a new environment where he isn't in a leadership role and that's what has lead to his retirement.

Vettori also hints at it a little here IMO, that its always been either Fleming's way or no way at all

"If you know Stephen, he doesn't get his arm twisted on too many things," Vettori told the New Zealand Herald. "Stephen has always been strong in his thoughts and decisions. I don't think it will be my place to try and twist his arm. It's his decision. We'd love to have him as long as we can.

Fleming will go down in my mind as a good player, but nothing more, and certainly not one of NZs greats.

The main question I would ask everyone, would he make your NZ all-time Test or ODI lineups? My answer to both codes is No.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Funny that someone with such a poor conversion rate from 50 to 100, has actually gone onto make some very big 100s once he's got over the milestone.

 

[NZTailender]

Fleming will go down in my mind as a good player, but nothing more, and certainly not one of NZs greats.

Wow, you really don't rate him, do you? He basically carried a poor batting line up for years. He is easily one of New Zealand's all time great players.

 

[slugger]

ops

 

[slugger]

Funny that someone with such a poor conversion rate from 50 to 100, has actually gone onto make some very big 100s once he's got over the milestone.

^^^^

same with sinclair hahah but hes had less innings to do in.. and he also is part of the revolveing door policy...

fleming scored his first century in his 23rd match.. 129
sinclair had scored 3 by his 12th match 214, 150, 204*

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Wow, you really don't rate him, do you? He basically carried a poor batting line up for years. He is easily one of New Zealand's all time great players.

Ditto.

Plus, just judging him on his conversion rate is a load of crap. How many players get to 100 and then get out. Fleming was out for 99 once, and I think he has been out about 3-4 times altogether between 97-99. If only for a couple more runs he could have 12 centuries. 12 still isnt great, but it looks better. Add on to that his 3 doubles, his 192 and 174, and it isnt that bad.

I think people pay too much attention to conversion rate. At the end of the day a century is just an arbitrary indication of a 'great innings'. Just because you get to triple figures, doesn't automatically make your innings great. Just as not making it to triple figures doesn't make your innings bad.

The fact that you can score 99, and it goes down as 'only' a 50. Yet if you get 1 extra run and it is shown as a 100. Does that make the 100 better? In the stats sheet it looks 50 runs extra, but in reality it is only 1.

Would you rather have a guy who has scored 15 centuries with a HS of 130 and only a couple of scores between 80-99 or a guy who has scored only 9 centuries but averages 226 when he gets to triple figures (including 3 triples) and 11 scores between 80-99 of which 6 are 90s.

 

[NZTailender]

The fact that he made so many 50's shouldn't count against them, when other NZ batsman fail to make any at the same regualarity as Fleming.

 

[Smudge]

To be fair, James doesn't rate many New Zealand players. Must be why he moved to Sydney...

 

[James]

To be fair, James doesn't rate many New Zealand players. Must be why he moved to Sydney...

I just don't give the word "great" out easily

Does he measure up alongside the likes of Turner, Crowe, Hadlee and company? No he doesn't IMO, so he's good, not great. That's it, plain and simple for me. You can't call someone an all-time great, just because they were one of the best in a fairly poor team.

 

[Bahnz]

Wow, you really don't rate him, do you? He basically carried a poor batting line up for years. He is easily one of New Zealand's all time great players.

No...he really hasn't. He's carried the New Zealand batting lineup in the last couple of years, but during the 1990's and early 2000's, he was just one of a number of good batsman, such as Cairns, McMillan, Astle, Richardson, Styris etc. The fact that he scored only 3 centuries in the first 8 years of his career underlines this fact. He certainly had the potential to do much better than any of his contemporaries, but I think being burdened with the captaincy at such a young age probably had an adverse affect on his performances for the first 4 or so years. Thus, I'm more of the opinion that Fleming falls into the category of the "very goods" but doesn't quite sit alongside the likes of Crowe, Donnelly, Turner and Sutcliffe, in the hall of great New Zealand batsmen.