The greatest batsman who averaged in the 40s

[Xuhaib]

if Warner did better in Asia and England he could have been considered in the big 4 league his record still matches up to them.

 

[CharlesLara]

Great tactician or not, Fleming doesn't make the ATG NZ Test XI.

Yeah definitely, I'm not really tryna to argue against anyone, I'm just a Fleming fan ha and when he was on, a real treat to watch, which is kinda where my bias leads towards in threads like these as these are players who I just feel provided something different as a cricket fan watching.

 

[CharlesLara]

Martyn and Sehwag were very different players but who both had pretty minimal footwork.

Good point, and also had similar very strong scoring areas, square of the wicket and off the pads. Martyn's swing of the bat so pure and everything so easy at the crease, even when Giles cleaned him up with the one ball he managed to turn I thought to myself being the Giles hater that I was "well, Martyn's made that look even better". What a sad state of affairs lol.

 

[Adders]

Fear not, Root's average will drop below 50 by mid 2017 and not get above it again.

I'd really like to make some form of wager with you on this. Lets forget the "not get above it again" part otherwise this will take 10+ years to resolve, but I'll certainly get on any bet that you'd care to make that his average will be below 50 by mid next year.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah, without going out of my way to try to squeeze batsman like Andrew Jones & John F Reid ahead of him, I'd say the following 7 would be considered ahead of Flem as Test bats without too much argument; so just with that lot he'd be 8th...

Crowe
KW
Dempster
Donnelly
Sutcliffe
Turner
Taylor

**** off the three minute wonders and a bloke who scored even less tons than Fleming are better than the kiwi who dominated Murali.

 

[ImpatientLime]

not mark waugh

 

[vic_orthdox]

Nah Root will stay 50+ his conversion rate is poor and will improve with age and experience so it might even stay 55+ during his peak.

His conversion rate was quite good at the beginning of the career?

 

[Marius]

South Africa : Smith, EDIT - Mitchell!! (major forget), Barlow, Taylor, Bland, Faulkner

You could make a case for Herschelle Gibbs too possibly.

 

[Zinzan]

**** off the three minute wonders and a bloke who scored even less tons than Fleming are better than the kiwi who dominated Murali.

I did preface that statement by saying nobody outside Fleming's biggest fan would have him making an all-time NZ test XI, guess I was right.

Dempster, Donnelly & Sutcliffe were all superior batsmen than Fleming relative to the time they played. Don't be fooled by Donnelly's lack of tests, his career coincided with WWII. but in English FC cricket for Middlesex he was such a legend that the famous C. B. Fry remarked that he was as good a left-hander as any he had seen, including Clem Hill and Frank Woolley,

In Dempster's case, it wasn't his fault that NZ only started playing Tests in 1930, but he had toured England in 1927 for a FC tour and was out of this world.

Regarding Bert Sutcliffe, if you don't know about his reputation as one of the top NZ bats ever, you need to do some reading.

Honestly doubt many cricket historians would argue against those 3 being considered better than your namesake.

If it's any consolation, Fleming would be the skipper for my all-time NZ 2nd XI..

 

[Flem274*]

I did preface that statement by saying nobody outside Fleming's biggest fan would have him making an all-time NZ test XI, guess I was right.

Dempster, Donnelly & Sutcliffe were all superior batsmen than Fleming relative to the time they played. Don't be fooled by Donnelly's lack of tests, his career coincided with WWII. but in English FC cricket for Middlesex he was such a legend that the famous C. B. Fry remarked that he was as good a left-hander as any he had seen, including Clem Hill and Frank Woolley,

In Dempster's case, it wasn't his fault that NZ only started playing Tests in 1930, but he had toured England in 1927 for a FC tour and was out of this world.

Regarding Bert Sutcliffe, if you don't know about his reputation as one of the top NZ bats ever, you need to do some reading.

Honestly doubt many cricket historians would argue against those 3 being considered better than your namesake.

If it's any consolation, Fleming would be the skipper for my all-time NZ 2nd XI..

"i read some opinions so they must be true"

Dempster and Donnelly were better County batsmen, but they're gonna need a few more tests to say they were definitely better than Fleming as test batsmen. If you've played bugger all tests and get the wraps Cowie got, fine, but qualifications like "best left hander" need more than two minutes on the test stage.

Sutcliffe for his time was a gun for NZ and still makes it into my preffered team as an opener, but he's pretty comparable to Fleming tbh. Elegant left hander who got shuffled around the order and scored monster runs against spinners but has just a decent average and not many tons.

Fleming skippers my seconds too, but you were jumping to the extreme with your statements and needed calling out.

 

[Zinzan]

"i read some opinions so they must be true"
.

Lol, what does this even mean considering essentially any cricket history prior to about 1960 requires 1) an understanding of how the player performed relative to their contemporaries & 2) reading what historians and past cricketers who actually saw them/played against them had to say.

I like how you decide it's extreme to put Donnelly and Dempster ahead considering the majority of NZ all-time XIs floating around include both of them and not Fleming, yet I'm the extreme one.

If I wanted to push the envelope I'd have categorically put Andrew Jones ahead of Flem as well and even that wouldn't quite be extreme, although I gave Flem the edge on that match-up.

And finally, who's likely to be more impartial on this particular debate? Me or the guy who uses Flem274 as his username?

 

[burr]

With regards to this thread, I generally only comment on players I have watched and tend to go for more personal favourites (which I think makes this thread for interesting, as there can be quite varied answers, whereas with ATG you kinda have to pick certain players cause its undeniable), so for me, Damien Martyn.

That’s a really good point, 40ish batsman and discussions about them are in some ways the most interesting – fallible, enigmatic but capable of absolute brilliance. And, of course, I absolutely share your Martyn love. I saw both Waugh and Martyn and they actually had quite different styles even though they are both couched as elegant. Martyn was more technically perfect and compact, with a lovely stance (you don’t get those stances anymore, everyone’s about those ugly raised bat trigger movements). Waugh more languid perhaps. Waugh was more stylish on the on in my opinion, Martyn on the off. Both were awesome and Australian cricket needs some style back in the top order! Maybe Khawaja provides that but I haven’t seen enough of him to judge.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Haha, knew what the topic would be when I saw burr had posted in here.

 

[Burgey]

That’s a really good point, 40ish batsman and discussions about them are in some ways the most interesting – fallible, enigmatic but capable of absolute brilliance. And, of course, I absolutely share your Martyn love. I saw both Waugh and Martyn and they actually had quite different styles even though they are both couched as elegant. Martyn was more technically perfect and compact, with a lovely stance (you don’t get those stances anymore, everyone’s about those ugly raised bat trigger movements). Waugh more languid perhaps. Waugh was more stylish on the on in my opinion, Martyn on the off. Both were awesome and Australian cricket needs some style back in the top order! Maybe Khawaja provides that but I haven’t seen enough of him to judge.

Last summer aside, most of Uzzie's team mates haven't seen enough of his batting either.