Worst International "Batter" currently????

[Precambrian]

Yeah he was roundly condemned by the few posters who were sitting on here in the middle of the night for doing such a thing.

What's wrong in that? You are playing at the highest level of cricket and you must not expect any thing easy from the opposition just because you are a mug.

 

[zaremba]

What's wrong in that? You are playing at the highest level of cricket and you must not expect any thing easy from the opposition just because you are a mug.

To me, what is acceptable depends on the "batsman's" level of ability. In Martin's case, that level is pretty much non-existent. This has two effects. First, he cannot protect himself. Second, there is simply no need to bounce him out. He's not a Hoggard-type of player who is basically unable to score but can block the straight ones; he's a player for whom the fast, full, straight ball will consistently get him out virtually immediately. Therefore Anderson's bouncers were completely unnecessary.

To take another example: Courtney Walsh subjecting Devon Malcolm to a very nasty onslaught of short pitched bowling. Malcolm was a desperately poor batsman, albeit marginally better than Martin, and what Walsh did was in my view wrong.

To be fair, I didn't see or hear Martin or any of the other NZers complaining even when he was (IIRC) hit. It made for extremely uncomfortable viewing though.

 

[analyst]

Considering tailenders are too obvious, Id have to say, the most obvious one is Grant Elliot of NZ as a test batsman, he looks hopeless.

 

[Perm]

I think the statistic is that hes never hit a boundary in tests in front of square of the wicket, or so we've been informed.

Nah, cover-drove a four against Bangladesh last summer at the Uni Oval. Glorious shot, crowd went wild.

 

[Precambrian]

Nah, cover-drove a four against Bangladesh last summer at the Uni Oval. Glorious shot, crowd went wild.

Who was the suffering bowler?

 

[Richard]

What's wrong in that? You are playing at the highest level of cricket and you must not expect any thing easy from the opposition just because you are a mug.

To me, what is acceptable depends on the "batsman's" level of ability. In Martin's case, that level is pretty much non-existent. This has two effects. First, he cannot protect himself. Second, there is simply no need to bounce him out. He's not a Hoggard-type of player who is basically unable to score but can block the straight ones; he's a player for whom the fast, full, straight ball will consistently get him out virtually immediately. Therefore Anderson's bouncers were completely unnecessary.

To take another example: Courtney Walsh subjecting Devon Malcolm to a very nasty onslaught of short pitched bowling. Malcolm was a desperately poor batsman, albeit marginally better than Martin, and what Walsh did was in my view wrong.

To be fair, I didn't see or hear Martin or any of the other NZers complaining even when he was (IIRC) hit. It made for extremely uncomfortable viewing though.

AWTz.

Short deliveries are rarely all that neccessary at tailenders anyway. Against tailenders as hopeless as Martin, all you're doing by bowling them is trying to inflict damage. Unforgiveable, in my view. Akin to bowling - deliberately - head-high Beamers at top-order batsmen.

Just bowl full and at the stumps and it's a matter of deliveries.

 

[Richard]

I thought Sidey was a decent tailender. As too Hoggy, Isnt he one of the best nightwatchmen around? Anderson and Panesat are mugs.

The Anderson of today I'd say is better than the Hoggard of any time bar, perhaps, 2004. Hoggard could sometimes be a decent nightwatchman, but he could also be counterproductive. I'm all for defence, but Hoggard simply never even looked to score. Anderson actually has the odd stroke here and there and can both hang around a bit and score a few. Hoggard simply hung around, and not all that often.

Sidebottom is an OK-ish tailender and marginally above number-eleven standards. Not anywhere near as good, in my view, as Andy Caddick - though likely to last for longer much more often, nowhere near so likely to produce an innings of significance.

 

[morgieb]

Chris Martin. What a stupid question.

 

[Uppercut]

AWTz.

Short deliveries are rarely all that neccessary at tailenders anyway. Against tailenders as hopeless as Martin, all you're doing by bowling them is trying to inflict damage. Unforgiveable, in my view. Akin to bowling - deliberately - head-high Beamers at top-order batsmen.

Just bowl full and at the stumps and it's a matter of deliveries.

Err, no. Once any batsman passes 10 it's completely acceptable to bowl bouncers at him. He has a helmet. Why should you run in at break-neck speed and bowl full repeatedly because he's too incompetent to deal with a short ball? If he doesn't want to bat, then let him stay in the dressing room. Otherwise let him bat against a real bowling attack rather than a artificially soft one.

 

[fredfertang]

Why do you say it makes a difference how many runs a batsman has?

 

[Uppercut]

It doesn't a great deal. But once someone's putting on runs that your team will have to drag back in the next innings (presumably without the added comfort of having no short balls bowled at them) it gets harder to defend the no-bouncers-to-the-tail idea.

In the case of Chris Martin, a bouncer was poor bowling as much as against the spirit. It's considerably less likely to get him out than going for the stumps.

 

[fredfertang]

Just wondered - my view is that in a fully professional sport if a fast bowler wants to/feels he needs to bowl short to number 11 then so be it - at the lower levels of the game the considerations should be completely different and, I hope, still are.

 

[Perm]

Who was the suffering bowler?

Can't remember sorry. Could probably find it by looking at the ball-by-ball for the test.

 

[Precambrian]

87.5 Shahadat Hossain to Martin, FOUR, not bad at all.....overpitched outside off, Martin leans forward into the drive, manages to beat mid-off, cover does the chasing and fails to pull the ball back before the boundary

From Cricinfo's commentary of 1st test at Dunedin.

 

[Top_Cat]

Just wondered - my view is that in a fully professional sport if a fast bowler wants to/feels he needs to bowl short to number 11 then so be it - at the lower levels of the game the considerations should be completely different and, I hope, still are.

Yep. People might argue that you shouldn't bowl short to tail-enders but this is professional sport, no holds barred. Certainly shouldn't be any rules mandating it because all it takes is a few lusty shots from said tail-ender and it can cost you a Test (see Allan Mullally, almost as much a bunny as Martin, 1998 against the Aussies in Melbourne). It only seems cruel to bounce him because the Test was so one-sided; if the game was close and a quick-fire 12 runs he scores cost them the match, people would be asking why they didn't try bouncing him. if it was mandated by the rules that they couldn't, that's pretty unfair.

 

[GGG]

Has there been a worse batsman than Chris Martin ever?

 

[fredfertang]

Seymour Clark got to the crease 9 times for Somerset in 1930 and was out for 0 seven times and 0* twice - he was a 'keeper

 

[Richard]

Has there been a worse batsman than Chris Martin ever?

Probably precious few who were worse, but I'd bet there've been a good few as bad.

 

[Richard]

Err, no. Once any batsman passes 10 it's completely acceptable to bowl bouncers at him. He has a helmet. Why should you run in at break-neck speed and bowl full repeatedly because he's too incompetent to deal with a short ball? If he doesn't want to bat, then let him stay in the dressing room. Otherwise let him bat against a real bowling attack rather than a artificially soft one.

As I say - there's simply no point bowling short deliveries at batsmen as clueless as Martin. The chances of a wicket are slim compared to the chances with a full ball, and this should be the bowler's only consideration. No bowler should ever be looking to inflict damage - if your attitude is this you might as well bowl deliberate Beamers.

As for the "batsman" having a helmet - a helmet doesn't protect the entire upper body.

And as for passing 10 - Chris Martin has never done this in a genuine Test. I'd be surprised if he's done it many times in cricket matches of any capacity.

 

[Ponting Man]

Martian is hopeless 6 pairs and the record of ducks in new zealand cricket