Cricketweb's 5 most unfairly treated players

[Richard]

Dilshan and Oram at their best are far superior ODI players, Tuffey too has mostly made his name in the shorter form.

Waugh, Gayle and Astle were all about equally good in either form. Gayle and Astle being two of their countries best Test batsman and IIRC averaging more in that form. Flintoff 05 might a not big enough example but his ODI record is hardly that great either? Bond did fine in the Tests he played.

Harby is a good Test bowler. Vettori is one of our best Test batsman of this decade, and up there in terms of bowling as well.
Nah, Dilshan has never been that good in ODIs until he got pushed up to open the batting - even now his Test record is miles better than his ODI one.

Oram can be a good ODI player yes but he has been a good Test one much more often.

Tuffey is in my book hopeless at ODIs but I've always thought he was potentially a very good Test bowler.

Mark Waugh, Gayle and Astle as I say were all excellent ODI batsmen; Waugh and Astle were merely decent Test ones and Gayle is barely Test-class. Harbhajan and Vettori are indeed good-ish Test bowlers but both are outstanding ODI ones.

Flintoff has been a good-to-outstanding ODI player since 2001/02; in Tests he was only such a thing from 2003 to 2006.

And yes Bond did fine in the Tests he played but he's also done superlatively in the ODIs he's played - he's one of the best if not the best of recent times, something no-one could possibly claim him to be in Tests even if only on the basis that he's hardly played any of the things.

 

[Richard]

If the point is 'Lara was a better test batsman then ODI batsman' then it seems a fair argument, though he was so good at both I wouldn't go too far with it. But if the point is that it can be proven from saying things like that the two forms of the game can't really be compared, then that seems crazy to me. I mean, Brian Lara is one of the highest run scorers ever in ODI cricket, and has over 10000 runs, averages 40, and has a strike rate of 80. It's unlikely that he's not using vastly the same skills, natural talent, and temperament in both forms of the game.

The same things that made him very good at ODIs made him one of the best Test cricket has ever seen... it's as simple as that.

 

[morgieb]

Back on topic. Reckon Mick Lewis gets too much flack on this forum. He may not have been great, but the fact that he conceded 100 runs in a one-day match automatically makes him ****. I disagree.

 

[NZTailender]

Back on topic. Reckon Mick Lewis gets too much flack on this forum. He may not have been great, but the fact that he conceded 100 runs in a one-day match automatically makes him ****. I disagree.

Conceding 100 runs in a ODI match doesn't make him ****, just generally being **** makes Mick Lewis ****.

 

[Zinzan]

Broom

How the hell is the Broom-knocking unfair? He's had ample opportunities now at international level & has delivered zero. Did u read the thread title correctly or am I missing something here?

 

[Zinzan]

Broom? No way, love the guy. Reckon he should be batting at three and he should already be in the test team.

Lol, Based on what exactly, his average of 18 (including 3 n/outs in 14 innings) & strike rate in the 60s?

 

[Zinzan]

great/good one day cricketers but average/ bad test cricketers
michael bevan
nick knight
ajay jadeja
ajit agarkar
allan lamb

Could add Chris Harris & Gavin Larsen to that lot

 

[Zinzan]

Not if only Test-standard sides are considered it isn't. Bond has basically made a big difference to NZ in a Test series on a whole one occasion - his was a massive contribution to the win in West Indies in 2002. They'd have won against India in 2002/03 without him, and in 2006/07 and 2007/08 he hardly tore things up and NZ failed to win anything.

Of course, Bond made no difference to NZ winning this test 1st Test: New Zealand v West Indies at Auckland, Mar 9-13, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com when West Indies needed 291 to win & were 148 without loss did he...

After winning the 1st test, NZ went on to win the series 2-0

FFS, Really wish you'd get your facts right before spouting your opinion as fact, so damn annoying

 

[Pratters]

Michael Bevan never got a second chance to prove he had done away with his weakness of the short ball. He really turned it on in domestic FC cricket after he was dropped but because the Aussie line up was so strong, never got a look in.

 

[morgieb]

Bond's a total gun in Tests, but even better in ODI's. Calling him an average test player is a lie, though.

Always thought Waqar's test and ODI record was as good as each other too.

 

[morgieb]

Michael Bevan never got a second chance to prove he had done away with his weakness of the short ball. He really turned it on in domestic FC cricket after he was dropped but because the Aussie line up was so strong, never got a look in.

Yeah, agreed. Plus I don't think he was used that well by Australia in the first place.

Had he played for a different country, his record might be way different. England, for example, kept turning to Ramprakash and Hick despite their many failures (at test cricket, in Hick's case).

 

[Pratters]

Yeah, agreed. Plus I don't think he was used that well by Australia in the first place.

Had he played for a different country, his record might be way different. England, for example, kept turning to Ramprakash and Hick despite their many failures (at test cricket, in Hick's case).

Vinod Kambli's case is similar though not a photo copy. He played very well in domestic FC cricket to warrant a return to the side. He got a look in into the ODI side but broke his ankle. Never got to return to the test side to try and prove himself again. A bit sad given the way his career had started. The man definitely had talent.

 

[morgieb]

Couldn't use it that good, however. Bevan's main problem was technique wise, and even that got ironed out eventually.

 

[marc71178]

Had he played for a different country, his record might be way different. England, for example, kept turning to Ramprakash and Hick despite their many failures (at test cricket, in Hick's case).

Ramprakash had many more failures at Test level than Hick.

 

[SJS]

1. Reetinder Singh Sodhi
2. Sairaj Bahutule
3. VRV Singh
4. Manpreet Goni
5. Asnodkar

 

[Howsie]

Lol, Based on what exactly, his average of 18 (including 3 n/outs in 14 innings) & strike rate in the 60s?

No, based on his first class record. That and the fact he's a lot more compact then Daniel Flynn.

 

[Flem274*]

Neil Broom should not bat three, He's a good batsman but its not his thing, Daniel Flynn is also a one season wonder and not ery good but Broom should not bat three, he should bat four or five if he is picked for tests.

Which he won't ne because he'll fail in ODIs and not be touched again for ages, even if we go bto todd Astle or some not very good person.

 

[Howsie]

Neil Broom should not bat three, He's a good batsman but its not his thing, Daniel Flynn is also a one season wonder and not ery good but Broom should not bat three, he should bat four or five if he is picked for tests.

Which he won't ne because he'll fail in ODIs and not be touched again for ages, even if we go bto todd Astle or some not very good person.

Someone been drinking?

 

[NZTailender]

How the hell is the Broom-knocking unfair? He's had ample opportunities now at international level & has delivered zero. Did u read the thread title correctly or am I missing something here?

Missing the part where Broom, a player who isn't completely suited to limited overs (List A average of 30), has been put into a spot usually reserved for people who are 'big hitters' and hasn't succeeded. It's not his game. I feel if we're going to use him in ODIs, put him where he'd be of most use to us and himself, which is in the top order. I'd rather see him not play ODIs at all, as opposed to trying to mould him into some kind of late order basher.

Lol, Based on what exactly, his average of 18 (including 3 n/outs in 14 innings) & strike rate in the 60s?

No, based on his solid domestic first class performances, which is his stronger format. Broom has been pretty good domestically for a while now, averaged 50 last season and 38 overall (42 for Otago since moving from Canterbury), not to mention some good top end tours over in Australia and other NZ A games. He has one of the better NZ domestic records going around, no worse than Daniel Flynn, Martin Guptill et al.

But go ahead, write off a player for Tests when he hasn't played one, based on performances from his weakest discipline in the wrong batting positions and being expected to do something he's not quite capable of.

Neil Broom should not bat three, He's a good batsman but its not his thing, Daniel Flynn is also a one season wonder and not ery good but Broom should not bat three, he should bat four or five if he is picked for tests.

Which he won't ne because he'll fail in ODIs and not be touched again for ages, even if we go bto todd Astle or some not very good person.

I know you were drunk but I agree, actually, shouldn't bat at 3 if he were picked for Tests. Not that he'd get the choice as Flynn is the incumbent, Taylor won't be moved from 4 (where he bats for Otago) neither Ryder from 5. Oram has just retired from the longer format so that frees up a number 6 spot for him.

 

[Richard]

Bond's a total gun in Tests, but even better in ODI's. Calling him an average test player is a lie, though.

Perhaps that's why no-one did such a thing?