Just how good is Ntini?

[shivfan]

He's the second worst cricketer ever to reach 100 Tests.

He's taken 390 wickets at an average of 28.5, which is damn good, considering the batsman-friendly wickets that exist around the world these days....

 

[bagapath]

how good is ntini?

good. pretty good at times. in terms of effectiveness and acheivements makhaya belongs in the pool of fastbowlers comprising of lee, srinath, gough, caddick, hoggard and chris cairns. a step short of greatness, yes, but a very highly respectable bunch nevertheless.

why does every decent fastbowler (barring the great glenn mcgrath) concedes more runs per over in this decade than in the previous years? may be, in the future, we will accept a 3+ econ rate as a passable one for the decade just like a SR of 60+ is considered alright for the 50s and 60s.

 

[bagapath]

He's the second worst cricketer ever to reach 100 Tests.

i am sure atherton was the first.

 

[Sir Alex]

i am sure atherton was the first.

Yeah

 

[vic_orthdox]

Just how good is Ntini?

Well, he's sneaky enough to make people buy a vowel when they've already used them all in Wheel of Fortune. Slippery bugger. What the hell is "NTI" in the first place?!

 

[DaRick]

As a bowler, Ntini's overall career has been very good in both formats. However, he is not an all-time great. The disparity between his Test (and to an extent) home and away averages is astounding and may reflect that he is somewhat one-dimensional. He seams it in considerably and troubles the left-handers in particular (Matthew Hayden did not like facing him), but his action and style of release can lead to him spraying it down the legside when he isn't bowling well. Whilst he can bowl over after over in hostile conditions, he doesn't appear to generate reverse swing (or much swing at all, due to his open-chested action). I also think that his ability to strike has badly decreased since Pollock's phasing out from the South African side (compensated for by Steyn). As a fielder, he is usually safe but does some dumb things, whilst he is a typically entertaining tailend batsman.

As the first black cricketer to play for South Africa (and the only one thus far to have generated the kind of record that he has), his impact on SA cricket (and as a role model for future black bowlers like Tsotsobe) is incalculable. He truly represents the transition from SA cricket as an Afrikaneer-dominated sport to one where any man can succeed and thus the transformation of SA's greater society.

 

[stephen]

As a bowler, Ntini's overall career has been very good in both formats. However, he is not an all-time great. The disparity between his Test (and to an extent) home and away averages is astounding and may reflect that he is somewhat one-dimensional. He seams it in considerably and troubles the left-handers in particular (Matthew Hayden did not like facing him), but his action and style of release can lead to him spraying it down the legside when he isn't bowling well. Whilst he can bowl over after over in hostile conditions, he doesn't appear to generate reverse swing (or much swing at all, due to his open-chested action). I also think that his ability to strike has badly decreased since Pollock's phasing out from the South African side (compensated for by Steyn). As a fielder, he is usually safe but does some dumb things, whilst he is a typically entertaining tailend batsman.

As the first black cricketer to play for South Africa (and the only one thus far to have generated the kind of record that he has), his impact on SA cricket (and as a role model for future black bowlers like Tsotsobe) is incalculable. He truly represents the transition from SA cricket as an Afrikaneer-dominated sport to one where any man can succeed and thus the transformation of SA's greater society.

Actually I think he was the only bowler good enough to get Hayden out many times they played together.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[Uppercut]

All 9 of them caught.

 

[Richard]

in terms of effectiveness and acheivements makhaya belongs in the pool of fastbowlers comprising of lee, srinath, gough, caddick, hoggard and chris cairns.

Would classify pretty much all of that lot in different categories myself.

 

[Richard]

He's taken 390 wickets at an average of 28.5, which is damn good, considering the batsman-friendly wickets that exist around the world these days....

That merely shows that "worst cricketer to play 100 Tests" is a ****ing stupid question. By definition, if you've played 100 Tests you're damn good. "Least outstanding player to play 100 Tests" would be far more appropriate.

 

[aussie]

i am sure atherton was the first.

Excuse me??

 

[Uppercut]

how good is ntini?

good. pretty good at times. in terms of effectiveness and acheivements makhaya belongs in the pool of fastbowlers comprising of lee, srinath, gough, caddick, hoggard and chris cairns. a step short of greatness, yes, but a very highly respectable bunch nevertheless.

why does every decent fastbowler (barring the great glenn mcgrath) concedes more runs per over in this decade than in the previous years? may be, in the future, we will accept a 3+ econ rate as a passable one for the decade just like a SR of 60+ is considered alright for the 50s and 60s.

Interesting that you say "we". Personally I consider any economy rate perfectly acceptable as long as the strike rate is good enough. Taking wickets quickly is always better than taking them slowly. I've no idea how many people agree with me or how many agree with you.

 

[andyc]

That merely shows that "worst cricketer to play 100 Tests" is a ****ing stupid question. By definition, if you've played 100 Tests you're damn good. "Least outstanding player to play 100 Tests" would be far more appropriate.

Yawn. Do you really need to quantify that, Rich? Pretty sure everyone recognises the fact that anyone who plays 100 Tests is a decent player. Just because you're the 'worst' in a category doesn't mean you're a terrible cricketer, and I think most would realise that. Out of Bradman and Sobers, Sobers is the worst batsman, but he's still a bloody good one.

 

[bagapath]

Interesting that you say "we". Personally I consider any economy rate perfectly acceptable as long as the strike rate is good enough. Taking wickets quickly is always better than taking them slowly. I've no idea how many people agree with me or how many agree with you.

my wife agrees with me. that makes it two of us, at least. so i am allowed to use "we".

 

[bagapath]

Would classify pretty much all of that lot in different categories myself.

fair enough. i was more particular about placing him higher than the zaheer khans and jimmy andersons and below the gillespies and akhthars and far far below the mcgraths and donalds. all these guys mentioned in my earlier post would fall into that bracket along with ntini anyway. hence the grouping.

 

[Top_Cat]

That merely shows that "worst cricketer to play 100 Tests" is a ****ing stupid question. By definition, if you've played 100 Tests you're damn good. "Least outstanding player to play 100 Tests" would be far more appropriate.

Going to be an awesome lawyer.

 

[Richard]

Yawn. Do you really need to quantify that, Rich? Pretty sure everyone recognises the fact that anyone who plays 100 Tests is a decent player. Just because you're the 'worst' in a category doesn't mean you're a terrible cricketer, and I think most would realise that. Out of Bradman and Sobers, Sobers is the worst batsman, but he's still a bloody good one.

I just think that "worst" is a needlessly emotive term - it has irrevocable negative connotations and whenever "worst of <insert very good bunch>" is put up as a subject for discussion it's inevitably going to draw emotive responses from those who have a fondness for the players in question.

I just think it's so much easier to use the more appropriate "least outstanding" or analogous terminology.

 

[Richard]

Going to be an awesome lawyer.

I do hope so. Long way off yet though.

 

[bagapath]

I do hope so. Long way off yet though.

good luck richard. what is it with CW and lawyers? richard in england and ikki in australia all studying to be lawyers.. all the best, mate...

i cant resist this. in the indian system, which must be based on the british system, there are district courts in every county and a high court for each state/province and one supreme court for the whole country. pretty much like league cricket, first class cricket and test cricket. the supreme court lawyers are always smarter than the high court guys.