Those who should have played more

[Richard]

Agree with this. I feel like Zimbabwe produced a host of world class cricketers during the early 90s - many of whom could've had long and fruitful careers under different circumstances. Andy Flower and Heath Streak were a world apart. Grant Flower, Neil Johnson, Murray Goodwin were right up there with the best, I feel.

Grant Flower was a pretty good batsman, and had a reasonable career. However, he was handicapped by being moved down the order towards the end of his career just because he'd lost form. Andy Flower was and proved himself one of the best batsmen of his generation, behind only Tendulkar, Lara and Stephen Waugh.

Johnson and Goodwin only played for 2-3 years as they were inherantly South African and Australian respectively and their families never settled in Zimbabwe. I don't blame them.

 

[Richard]

Yep, 4 or 5 bowlers, however when one of two of them were injured or suspended for taking a slimming tablet he could have been given more of a chance.

I'm not going to argue that MacGill didn't bowl loose balls, he sure did, but he also took heaps of wickets domestically. MacGill would walk into an Australian domestic cricket all time XI IMO.

Would that be "played fewer than 25 ODIs" or something?

 

[Richard]

Damien Fleming - could've made it in almost any other country, but I suppose he found it hard to get past McGrath, Gillespie and later, Lee.

And Paul Wilson and Adam Dale at one point too.

 

[zaremba]

In ODIs, yes, and have seen plenty of highlights of him in both game-forms. And read a few bits and pieces.

However, I don't need to have watched a Test to know whether it was live or dead - a series scoreline will tell me that juuuuuust fine.

I watched him bat in Tests quite a bit and didn't form the impression that here was a "dead Test bully". And I have to say I'd not heard anyone before you accuse him of this. I appreciate that you may be able to analyse his scorecards but I think it's a little over-ambitious of you to try to write him off as a Test batsman in that way without ever having seen him bat in a Test match (other than by way of a highlights tape!).

 

[Richard]

I certainly don't write him off as a Test player, there's no way he was completely useless.

However, there's just no denying things like weight of runs in dead Tests. In what was essentially his Test debut he played one of the best innings ever seen, but thereafter, aside from in 1989-1989/90 where he was excellence personnified, he made no centuries (without being missed about 4 times) in live Tests! Though he did make one in a one-off game, which can't really be called live or dead. In dead games, some of his scores were 184*, 216, 81 and 150*. Now, a century isn't all there is to batting, and he made several scores of note in The Ashes '86/87. However, that really is it.

If you look at his record from his 2nd game of '86/87 to '92 without the 13 Tests of '89-'89/90 (ie, there's 36 games in this time - the majority of his career) then I reckon the difference between his records in dead and live Tests would be staggering. And I don't reckon his average in live games would be much more than 30.

I found this information, BTW, because of someone else mentioning it. It wasn't via my own steam - until then I'd thought "why on Earth does Dean Jones not get more credit as a Test player?"

 

[The Sean]

I watched him bat in Tests quite a bit and didn't form the impression that here was a "dead Test bully". And I have to say I'd not heard anyone before you accuse him of this. I appreciate that you may be able to analyse his scorecards but I think it's a little over-ambitious of you to try to write him off as a Test batsman in that way without ever having seen him bat in a Test match (other than by way of a highlights tape!).

To be fair on Rich here, it's actually quite a common criticism to be levelled at Deano. He was a wonderful player to watch in full flight, and you could argue that for a period of time he was the most popular cricketer in Australia, but his record in dead rubber matches is much better than in "live" Tests.

It's the main reason he was dropped - seemingly prematurely at the time - for Damien Martyn, that the Australian selectors had gotten fed up of Jones saving his best for when it mattered least.

 

[NUFAN]

Would that be "played fewer than 25 ODIs" or something?

No all time - well from the past 20 years lets say.

Certainly wouldn't be picking Shane Warne.

Macgill > all spinners in Australian One Day Domestic Cricket...

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Yeah, Johnson was a terrific ODI player over his short career and I reckon he could've had a decent Test career if he'd had longer.

Debuted in '97/98 and was gone by the end of 2000, I think. Well, I think the former, I know the latter.

Less sure about most of them. Ervine has always had some real skill, but he's not made the most of it. Friend and Blignaut were both very poor.

Brant turned himself into an Aussie very young.

I don't disagree with anything there Rikkidon'tlosethatnumber. Friend and Blignaut in the grand scheme of things were pretty poor players, but there's no doubt in my mind that they'd still be in the Zimbabwe team right now, politics aside. As such they should, as the thread asks, have played more.

I guess Craig Spearman probably should have played more tests, but I'm pretty glad he didn't. Don't think he would have succeeded, but given the recent problems with New Zealand openers, I expect he would have played more were he available.

 

[Richard]

No all time - well from the past 20 years lets say.

But what would be the criteria? Otherwise it'd just be McGrath, etc. - all the best Australian ODI bowlers.

 

[NUFAN]

But what would be the criteria? Otherwise it'd just be McGrath, etc. - all the best Australian ODI bowlers.

DOMESTIC CRICKET FORM..

State cricket, no other criteria..

 

[Richard]

But that'd mean you'd just get McGrath, Reiffel etc. It'd be precious little different to an Australian ODI team.

 

[NUFAN]

But that'd mean you'd just get McGrath, Reiffel etc. It'd be precious little different to an Australian ODI team.

Are you sure? Have you looked at domestic cricket stats in Australia? It may be precious little different, but my main point is that MacGill would be included...

 

[Richard]

Most excellent ODI performers were also excellent performers for their states.

If you can dominate at the top level you can dominate at the next one down!

Only thing is most big ODI players didn't play much.

 

[NUFAN]

But that'd mean you'd just get McGrath, Reiffel etc. It'd be precious little different to an Australian ODI team.

Name, Matches, Wickets, Average, Economy Rate

McGrath, 22, 29, 24.86, 3.58
Reiffel, 40, 37, 32.45, 3.90
Warne 30, 43, 27.93, 4.47
Hogg 77, 60, 32.55, 5.01
MacGill 62, 124, 22.36, 5.24.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, McGrath and Reiffel dead-certs, as I thought.

Imagine the likes of Fleming, Dale etc. will be damn good too.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah, McGrath and Reiffel dead-certs, as I thought.

Imagine the likes of Fleming, Dale etc. will be damn good too.

Nah Reiffel isn't at all.

Brad McNamara deserves it more than Reiffel..

McNamara 42, 57, 22,47, 3.83
Paul Reiffel 40, 37, 32.45, 3.90

 

[Richard]

Haha, jeesh, never heard of him.

Even so, might well have the both of them - who else is there?

 

[NUFAN]

Leading Wicket Takers..
Stuart MacGill 124
James Hopes 117
Kade Harvey 103
Mike Kasprowicz 101
Nathan Hauritz 95

Leading Strike Rates
Shaun Tait 24
Stuart MacGill 25.5
Anthony Stuart 30.1
James Hopes 31.2
Ben Edmondson 31.5

Best Economy Rates
Dennis Lillee 3.12
Max Walker 3.18
Geoff Dymock 3.45
Adam Dale 3.48
Geoff Lawson 3.48

Leading Averages
Dennis Lillee 16.89
Geoff Dymock 19.20
Shaun Tait 19.62
Greg Chappell 21.81
Ken MacLeay 21.98
6th Stuart MacGill 22.36

 

[The Sean]

The S/R and E/R lists there are particularly revealing, showing how the game has changed and that even the attacking fast bowlers of 20-30 years ago were positively miserly compared to even the stock bowlers of today, while taking wickets less frequently.

 

[Richard]

Leading Wicket Takers..
Stuart MacGill 124
James Hopes 117
Kade Harvey 103
Mike Kasprowicz 101
Nathan Hauritz 95

Leading Strike Rates
Shaun Tait 24
Stuart MacGill 25.5
Anthony Stuart 30.1
James Hopes 31.2
Ben Edmondson 31.5

Best Economy Rates
Dennis Lillee 3.12
Max Walker 3.18
Geoff Dymock 3.45
Adam Dale 3.48
Geoff Lawson 3.48

Leading Averages
Dennis Lillee 16.89
Geoff Dymock 19.20
Shaun Tait 19.62
Greg Chappell 21.81
Ken MacLeay 21.98
6th Stuart MacGill 22.36

Economy-rates are more interesting from 1990 onwards - as I've always said, OD cricket of the '70s and '80s isn't comparable as the game was played in a completely different manner to the '90s and '00s.

As you can see, Dale is the only one among the best ERs from the latter era.

at Kade Harvey being among the leading wicket-takers though, shows how little cricket is played in Aus.