What would your stats be if you actually played international cricket?

[Migara]

lol nah, going off from what I saw in the 2003 world cup (maybe he was better earlier), most first grade spinners (probably about a quarter of whom would have also played FC cricket as specialist bowlers) would be easily as good or better.

Grade bowlers don't bowl their sides to World cup victories.

And none of them average less than 30 in FCC I reckon with 100+ wickets.

 

[Migara]

Any murmurs from you?

Other than for a odd cardiac flow murmur, none.

 

[the big bambino]

Thanks. Was kind of interested how you formed your opinion.

 

[Andre]

I don't want to sidetrack the thread too much but the hashtag speaks to me as I've had the exact same thing. I also get this cricket imagery in my head depending on how I'm travelling on a particular day or if things are going well/badly in general. For example, when I have a dilemma or am in the midst of solving a problem, a first-person video of defending a ball full-face of the bat somes to mind. If I have a win, perfect on-drive. The Germans have a word for this sort of thing, Kopfkino. When (usually of the more intellectual persuasion) people bag sport as useless or ultimately pointless, I really can't get behind that at all. In some ways playing sport develops you more emotionally like few things can because your sense of both success and failure are fleshed out. You, as a person, are laid bare with a bunch of blokes cheering around you and depending on whether you've succeeded or failed, that can be with you having taken a wicket, scored the winning run or with your stumps spread wide and the guys screaming are cheering your ultimate failure. Shapes you emotionally as an adult so I don't find it surprising at all that associated images come back often later in life.

Anyway, as far as the thread goes, at the lower levels what separates the best from the rest tends to be physical. Bats can't handle anyone bowling 130Km/h+ and bowlers aren't quick enough to trouble the good bats. Once you get to 2nd grade, though, the differences become mental. There are guys playing 1st and 2nd grade who have the physcal and technical games to play Tests but they're missing other things, whether it be planning, strategy, quick adjustment to the circumstances or just holding your nerve against someone who's also a good operator. So I tend to fall on the side of guys like Social when he says even if you've played some 1st grade, you're going to get your arse kicked at Test level and it's not for physical reasons.

Yeah spot on mate. Going up from 2's to 1's it's not that the guys were that much better; it was more that everything happened better for longer the higher up the grades. I remember facing guys who had played lots of Shield cricket in 1s and they were just smarter and more consistent.

Obviously Test players stand out etc. (bowling to Hughes & facing Starc not much fun), but a guy like Copeland for example wasn't exactly better than the rest of us, he just maintained such a high standard for such a long period in matches that he wore down average grade cricketers for example.

The real good operators tend to have most guys sussed out in a few mins - but they can the go out, put mind and body together and execute, which is too much for the average cricketer and was too much for me in 1st grade.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah spot on mate. Going up from 2's to 1's it's not that the guys were that much better; it was more that everything happened better for longer the higher up the grades. I remember facing guys who had played lots of Shield cricket in 1s and they were just smarter and more consistent.

Obviously Test players stand out etc. (bowling to Hughes & facing Starc not much fun), but a guy like Copeland for example wasn't exactly better than the rest of us, he just maintained such a high standard for such a long period in matches that he wore down average grade cricketers for example.

The real good operators tend to have most guys sussed out in a few mins - but they can the go out, put mind and body together and execute, which is too much for the average cricketer and was too much for me in 1st grade.

Yeah that's a big trick innit. Sachin doesn't need to know anything about all the other tricks in your kitbag if you can't even land one in his danger zone and make him take you seriously. Conversely, McGrath doesn't need to know any more of your weakness or strengths if one of them is right where he bowls 90% of his deliveries, especially since where he tends to bowl troubles guys at absolutely every level of the game.

I guess, put another way, up at the top level, what is a great ball doesn't change that drastically but what is a bad one does. Fair?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I don't think there's a batsman on earth that doesn't have a weakness to bowling that hits the top of off.

 

[indiaholic]

Smitteh?

 

[Meridio]

Yeah spot on mate. Going up from 2's to 1's it's not that the guys were that much better; it was more that everything happened better for longer the higher up the grades. I remember facing guys who had played lots of Shield cricket in 1s and they were just smarter and more consistent.

Obviously Test players stand out etc. (bowling to Hughes & facing Starc not much fun), but a guy like Copeland for example wasn't exactly better than the rest of us, he just maintained such a high standard for such a long period in matches that he wore down average grade cricketers for example.

The real good operators tend to have most guys sussed out in a few mins - but they can the go out, put mind and body together and execute, which is too much for the average cricketer and was too much for me in 1st grade.

Yeah, this. One of the biggest differences I've found is bowlers' ability to respond under pressure. When I've played in the seconds, I know that if I hit someone for a couple of boundaries in an over then they'll fall apart, will tense up and likely bowl more deliveries to hit. In the firsts that doesn't happen so much, and the guys that have played first-class tend to actually bowl better if you get a few boundaries away.

 

[Cruxdude]

How I wish I had gotten to play with some international cricketers when they were at school. Would have loved to see how much better they were than people I considered to be great at that level.

 

[Furball]

Yeah that's a big trick innit. Sachin doesn't need to know anything about all the other tricks in your kitbag if you can't even land one in his danger zone and make him take you seriously. Conversely, McGrath doesn't need to know any more of your weakness or strengths if one of them is right where he bowls 90% of his deliveries, especially since where he tends to bowl troubles guys at absolutely every level of the game.

I guess, put another way, up at the top level, what is a great ball doesn't change that drastically but what is a bad one does. Fair?

I'm sure I've heard it said somewhere that the difference between Test and First Class cricket isn't that you face better bowling in Test cricket, you just face fewer bad balls.

 

[mr_mister]

Nope

You might have seen it but would've missed it all the same

Only difference would've been less bruises

unless Warnie is telepathic i could def score off him by charging down the crease at least once. even a single. you overestimate the power of a single flighted ball before its even pitched

 

[cpr]

In that case why does anyone let the spinning ball bounce? Test cricket would be so easy if people knew this...

A good spinner will read your body language, understand your intention and vary his ball, he'll beat you either in the air or by bowling a line you aren't expecting. I think Warne counts as a decent spinner...... I think 700 test wickets says he probably knows what many batsmen are going to do before he's finished his run up, let alone a nervous newcomer.

 

[mr_mister]

Plenty of batsman got Warne away once or twice before he easily snared them. maybe that was more macgills thing though than warne, happy to give up a few runs knowing hed get his man soon enough. not everyone was daryll culinan levels of clueless against shane though. obviously he's a spin genius and would outfox and outthink me within a few balls. id also probably get stumped third or fourth attempt at meeting the ball on the full so i wouldnt be trying more than once. i was just making a point how important the speed of the ball is for a noob like me and others here, and the fact the that getting runs off 130kmph "quicks" would be a harder challenge then spin, regardless of the bowling skill. especially when im not worried about building an innings or a career, im literally just trying to get one run to prove a point. thats just what i feel based on 15 years of playing. i represented newcastle U/21s, a decent sized city. im not a complete mug. i was also a decent spinner myself

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I reckon training with an international quality squad day in day out would turn most club players into something above Chris Martin level. Wouldn't be pretty at the start but eventually I'd be able to hold up an end and average 10 or so. Bowling I'd just bowl loopy chinamans and hope to troll a few boundary wickets - ER of 15 and average of 70 or so.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Bowling I'd just bowl loopy chinamans and hope to troll a few boundary wickets - ER of 15 and average of 70 or so.

So you'd have a better strike rate than Bond?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

This thread is filled with so much delusion it's unreal.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

So you'd have a better strike rate than Bond?

easy

 

[kiwiviktor81]

easy

An ER of 15 and an average of 70 means that you take a wicket every 28 balls. Personally, I'm in awe.

 

[bagapath]

I am so glad you asked. This has been an enduring fantasy of mine (along with certain others we don't want to get into).

As an Indian test cricketer I would:

Play England, Australia and South Africa once each at home and away, that is, in 2(4+4+3) = 22 tests
Will tour West Indies, Sri Lanka and New Zealand once = (4+3+3) = 10 tests
Would play a test series in Dubai vs Pak = 3 tests
Will not bother to turn up against Zim and Bang.

That will give me a total of 35 tests (11 at home and 24 overseas/neutral) over a period of four years.

Considering I am already 41, this is the most practical goal I can have (It was 52 tests - for obvious reasons - until two years ago)

Since I bowl off spin and bat in the lower order (in reality I never get to bowl or bat in any team any more; last time I was given the ball two years ago, I bowled three full tosses to the keeper and sprained my shoulder) I will usually bat at no.6 or no.7 - except in my last match, which I will come to later - and bowl at no. 3 or 4

my stats are very likely to be

- 35 tests. 62 innings. 7 not outs.
- 2872 runs. 52.21 batting average. 235* highest score. 11 hundreds. 14 fifties. 3 ducks.
- 164 wickets. 23.72 bowling average. 11 five-wicket hauls. 3 ten wicket match hauls.
- 51 catches. mostly snapped at second slip while the ball is new and, usually later in the innings, at forward short leg.

My last test, at the Oval, in which India are following on in a series that is still 0-0 (primarily because of my match saving 412 ball 101* at Lords in the first test) I bat at 7 in the first innings and score 42 and remain unbeaten. But I am in good nick. So I am asked to open the second innings. The 235* I score here (my only double making critics wonder how many more I would've scored if I had batted up the order) gives India a 171 run lead and I get England out with a 7 for 32 haul. The 277 runs I score in this match push my average from under 50 to 52+. And I finish on a real high note.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

The 277 runs I score in this match push my average from under 50 to 52+.

I think you win the thread.