You know what really grinds my cricketing gears?

[Precambrian]

One more reason to trash the garbage coming out of that site.

 

[nightprowler10]

Haha would be forgivable if the mistake in the headline was consistent with the content.

 

[Smudge]

It is criminal that any proper cricket fan would get that wrong, but sheesh.

You're assuming the sub-editor on the site is a cricket fan.

That said, still no excuse, considering the story below.

 

[Flem274*]

People using the words "average", "mediocre" and "ordinary" to mean "bad."

..."This New Zealand batting lineup has been made to look very ordinary today..."

No it hasn't. It's been made to look like the Craggy Island Over-75s. It's been made to look dire, ****, crap, useless, inept, bollocks. Runako M****n isn't a "mediocre test batsman". He's one of the worst batsmen ever to play test cricket. If someone's bad, just say they're bad. It's an insult to real mediocre players like Ross Taylor to lump them in with the useless ones.

Don't worry, every now and again after a loss our media like to put the boot in. Milmow raised the question whther somebody had to get killed before Vincent and Sinclair became our openrrs after SA and Chris Rattue has decided after the Aussie series that we'll never get another Hadlee and we'll never be good again (I think they've put him on suicide watch). But yes, other media like TV are a bit nicer to us.

I'm just trying to remember, are you the bloke that thinks anyone who merely averages 40 is crap? Boy no wonder you get revved up at our batting when we look at your standards.

 

[Uppercut]

Don't worry, every now and again after a loss our media like to put the boot in. Milmow raised the question whther somebody had to get killed before Vincent and Sinclair became our openrrs after SA and Chris Rattue has decided after the Aussie series that we'll never get another Hadlee and we'll never be good again (I think they've put him on suicide watch). But yes, other media like TV are a bit nicer to us.

I'm just trying to remember, are you the bloke that thinks anyone who merely averages 40 is crap? Boy no wonder you get revved up at our batting when we look at your standards.

Nah, 40 is average for a test batsman. I had a quick look and the "overall average" for a top six, non-wicket keeping batsman is about 41 (not including Bangladesh or Zimbabwe of course). This didn't change much when you took subcontinent matches out.

Obviously that doesn't mean that anyone averaging 41 is an average batsman, but that's what a mediocre average is. Those averaging below that in that period have a poor average by test standards, those averaging above it have good stats.

The tendency is to place the mediocre-line a bit below where i think it should be. I'd say mediocre is Michael Vaughan, and poor is Ian Bell. It's only a gear-grinder when people use it to describe Runako M****n or Upul Tharanga. The technical term for those players is in fact "prank batsmen".

 

[GIMH]

Nah, 40 is average for a test batsman. I had a quick look and the "overall average" for a top six, non-wicket keeping batsman is about 41 (not including Bangladesh or Zimbabwe of course). This didn't change much when you took subcontinent matches out.

Obviously that doesn't mean that anyone averaging 41 is an average batsman, but that's what a mediocre average is. Those averaging below that in that period have a poor average by test standards, those averaging above it have good stats.

The tendency is to place the mediocre-line a bit below where i think it should be. I'd say mediocre is Michael Vaughan, and poor is Ian Bell. It's only a gear-grinder when people use it to describe Runako M****n or Upul Tharanga. The technical term for those players is in fact "prank batsmen".

 

[Flem274*]

Nah, 40 is average for a test batsman. I had a quick look and the "overall average" for a top six, non-wicket keeping batsman is about 41 (not including Bangladesh or Zimbabwe of course). This didn't change much when you took subcontinent matches out.

Obviously that doesn't mean that anyone averaging 41 is an average batsman, but that's what a mediocre average is. Those averaging below that in that period have a poor average by test standards, those averaging above it have good stats.

The tendency is to place the mediocre-line a bit below where i think it should be. I'd say mediocre is Michael Vaughan, and poor is Ian Bell. It's only a gear-grinder when people use it to describe Runako M****n or Upul Tharanga. The technical term for those players is in fact "prank batsmen".

Prank batsmen? I haven't seen any whoopie-cuishions on the pitch lately.

So to you mediocre=normal, medium batsman. Nothing special but a worthy test batsman?

What period are you talking about btw? I'd imagine it would change a bit through the ages, I'd be stoked to average 40 in the 90s myself.

 

[Uppercut]

Prank batsmen? I haven't seen any whoopie-cuishions on the pitch lately.

So to you mediocre=normal, medium batsman. Nothing special but a worthy test batsman?

What period are you talking about btw? I'd imagine it would change a bit through the ages, I'd be stoked to average 40 in the 90s myself.

Oh, since 2000. I forgot to write that, sorry.

They're called prank batsmen because it's the only possible explanation for them playing international cricket.

 

[andruid]

Why won't people admit Makhaya Ntini is a damn good if not world class bowler?

 

[Flem274*]

Oh, since 2000. I forgot to write that, sorry.

They're called prank batsmen because it's the only possible explanation for them playing international cricket.

So I guess you'd take into account average during that period, not overall record? .g. Fleming overall 40, 2000-2008 average 45.

What of allrounders? Very few genuine allrounders average 40+. Obviously there's Kallis, Oram is close, can't recall Flintoffs off the top of my head.

Ah, so the reason James Marshall went to England was a prank? Wish it had been funny.

 

[GIMH]

So I guess you'd take into account average during that period, not overall record? .g. Fleming overall 40, 2000-2008 average 45.

What of allrounders? Very few genuine allrounders average 40+. Obviously there's Kallis, Oram is close, can't recall Flintoffs off the top of my head.

Ah, so the reason James Marshall went to England was a prank? Wish it had been funny.

It bloody was

 

[Uppercut]

So I guess you'd take into account average during that period, not overall record? .g. Fleming overall 40, 2000-2008 average 45.

What of allrounders? Very few genuine allrounders average 40+. Obviously there's Kallis, Oram is close, can't recall Flintoffs off the top of my head.

Ah, so the reason James Marshall went to England was a prank? Wish it had been funny.

I'd look at a lot of things really, and obviously there's a difference between an average player and a player with a mediocre average (which i'd say Stephen Fleming was). All-rounders are a special case too.

Generally, "average" or "ordinary" have quite negative connotations when describing a player, and i can't actually think of a word that says someone is middle of the road without having such connotations one way or the other.

 

[Richard]

Oh, since 2000. I forgot to write that, sorry.

2000 saw some of the best bowling you could wish for. It really should be grouped broadly in with the 1990s, for cricket purposes.

Just because the decade change fell on 1st January 2000, doesn't mean the sea-change in cricket had to or did.

September 2001 - or August, if you must - was the pivotal date.

 

[Richard]

Why won't people admit Makhaya Ntini is a damn good if not world class bowler?

Probably because he's pushing the former at best and never, ever going to be close to the latter.

Ntini is and always has been a hugely inconsistent performer and has also always relied on the pitch to a large degree.

However, if he arrests an apparently terminal decline which happened in 2007/08 and 2008, he'll have achieved something pretty damn good. And there's a few small signs, with his figures against teams a level below Test (ie, SA franchises and Bangladesh) so far in 2008/09 that he might just be up to doing it.

Clearly, though, Australia will be about as ultimate a test as you could wish for.

 

[Richard]

Generally, "average" or "ordinary" have quite negative connotations when describing a player, and i can't actually think of a word that says someone is middle of the road without having such connotations one way or the other.

I guess "decent" is one. Even that, though, goes marginally in the other direction.

Certainly always hate seeing a player I regard as pretty reasonable TSTL be described as "average" or "mediocre". EG, Atherton and Giles.

 

[Uppercut]

I guess "decent" is one. Even that, though, goes marginally in the other direction.

Certainly always hate seeing a player I regard as pretty reasonable TSTL be described as "average" or "mediocre". EG, Atherton and Giles.

Calling Giles mediocre is flattering. Even your defence of him only really adds up to, "well all finger spinners are pretty useless 90% of the time." As a test finger spinner he was average at best because he couldn't get turn on enough pitches, and as a test bowler he was worse than a lot of part-timers. Was probably as good as England had but should only really have played on tours of the subcontinent.

 

[Richard]

Go on, name me a part-timer who was a patch on Giles.

On a turning pitch, only rarely did Giles fail to deliver.

And no, I don't think he failed to get turn out of pitches most fingerspinners (eg, Swann or MSP) would get turn out of. Not at all. I think lots of the false expectations about MSP would never have been got-up if he'd played some of his early Tests on the pitches Giles was repeatedly wrongly selected on in 2002 and 2003.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Go on, name me a part-timer who was a patch on Giles.

Virender Sehwag.

 

[NZTailender]

Chris Gayle.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Aaron Redmond
Mark Waugh
Carl Hooper
Graeme Hick