A super allrounder, John Reid was born a generation too soon, for he retired in 1965 before one-day international matches were started. Reid would have been a one-day team on his own - a batsman with thunderous strokes, a rapacious fielder especially at gully or cover, a bowler of what became known as right-arm bursters which ranged from modest off-cutters to snarling bouncers.
John Reid | New Zealand Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo
Nah. He is winning the draft. He has picked great players and now in round 5 he has picked a must-have round 2 or 3 style pick.if he was a "must have" you would have chosen him earlier, hehe
Nah. He is winning the draft. He has picked great players and now in round 5 he has picked a must-have round 2 or 3 style pick.
BTW, this is a good draft idea, I wonder who would have a Slater-like poor ODI career after looking like he'd be good in the short format based on his Test performances. Is there anyone chosen so far that someone, for some reason feels like a particular player couldn't adapt to ODIs?
Wisden said that not only was he "a first-rate fast-medium bowler, but a bowler equal to anyone of his type in present-day cricket." It went on: "Some of Cowie's colleagues who had played with or against him in New Zealand were surprised at the pace off the pitch which he obtained on English wickets. A player with an enormous capacity for work, who seemed impervious to fatigue and was accurate in length and direction, he often bowled a vicious off-break and, as he could also make the ball 'lift' and swing away, he was a bowler to be feared."
I was wondering the same about Harvey, whether it would be good to have him open. Though can't really decide. Pollock should be at home at #3.I feel like another watson pick, Denis Compton, could well have been Slater-esque (he could also have been AbdV-esque though, so who knows?) I reckon if he were to succeed as an ODI batsman, he'd do it as an opener though. With his running between the wickets he could be far less valuable than another batsman of his quality and stature at #4
It's surprising how much 'One Day Single Innings' cricket (as it used to be called) the old timers used to play; especially from the 1950s onwards. If you want to check a player then just go to their 'Miscellaneous' matches on the 'Cricketarchive' website.I feel like another watson pick, Denis Compton, could well have been Slater-esque (he could also have been AbdV-esque though, so who knows?) I reckon if he were to succeed as an ODI batsman, he'd do it as an opener though. With his running between the wickets he could be far less valuable than another batsman of his quality and stature at #4
Wonderful pick, was hoping he'd survive another round. You couldn't find a player from the past anymore suited to ODIs than Reid would be. Pretty sure he hit around 40 test sixes as well, in the days that hitting 6s was rare as hens teeth.01.
02.
03. Ted Dexter
04. Denis Compton
05.
06. John R. Reid
07. Keith Miller
08.
09. Peter Pollock
10.
11.
John R Reid - explosive batsman with a bowling Economy Rate of just 2.2 in Tests. Pretty close to being a must have; especially when sitting along side Keith Miller in the batting order. Can share the 5th bowler duties with Dexter.
Yeah for sure and we are all guessing to a certain extent but pretty much all great test players have been at least very good ODI players. Made the first couple of rounds of this quite uncomplicated for me, you have to think about it a lot more at this stage.It's weird though. Say if Sehwag had never played an ODI in his career and people only saw his test career, everyone would've thought he'd probably have been the greatest ODI batsman ever. Didn't turn out that way though did it?