SillyCowCorner1
Moooo
This is a solid middle order
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The Records and Milestones thread
- Thread starter Bijed
- Start date
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
True. 3-7 of
Dravid
Tendulkar
Smith
Sobers
Sangakkara
Has a keeper and all-rounder as well. Incredibly balanced.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
If only this had better slip fielders
ParwazHaiJunoon
First Class Debutant
Smith & Sangakkara wouldn't perform at their best as they are out of their usual batting position. At#7, Gilchrist might out perform Sangakkara.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
With his unbeaten 16 Trent Boult moved to 623 test runs scored batting at #11 and into a share of the "most test runs scored at eleven" record with Murali.
Trent has done it in 20 fewer innings though.
Interestingly the player tucked into third place in the list is also slated to come in at #11 in the current England/NZ test. Should the Burnley Lara score 15 or more he'll take the record outright.
Trent has done it in 20 fewer innings though.
Interestingly the player tucked into third place in the list is also slated to come in at #11 in the current England/NZ test. Should the Burnley Lara score 15 or more he'll take the record outright.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Should just rename Eng V NZ tests "The Tailenders Trophy" tbh...
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
I don't see Anderson doing that in one innings nowadays, but maybe by the end of the summer. It's not as if he won't get a bat in this line-up.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
That really surprises me. Actually maybe not at number 9. Was he batting there when he made 169 against Pakistan? Perhaps his best years were there and Swann batted at 8. But I remain surprised that he's scored more at number 10 than anyone else.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
How's Matt Henry go in Tests to be batting behind Southee too? EDIT: 23.4 at 9 and 18.4 overall.
Southee also averaging just 10.4 since 2018 (exclusive) (i.e. 2019-now)
StephenZA
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think if your biggest problem is how to order your number 9-11 in the batting order... well then I can hear harps playing in the background in sympathy.
Sorry, it always been one of those strange complaints I`ve never understood... its largely much of a muchness and probably depends more on whose batting better in the nets, than any real ability.
Sorry, it always been one of those strange complaints I`ve never understood... its largely much of a muchness and probably depends more on whose batting better in the nets, than any real ability.
ataraxia
International Coach
I mean I would extol Henry's virtues, but he's been the most spineless of the lot since his 58 (from #11, of course).
@SZA: I agree as to the uselessness of ordering at that point, but it still irks me. Having 4 mindless sloggers to close the innings is the much bigger problem, especially when there's a ton of talent in there.
@SZA: I agree as to the uselessness of ordering at that point, but it still irks me. Having 4 mindless sloggers to close the innings is the much bigger problem, especially when there's a ton of talent in there.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Exactly. Jamieson and Henry can bat and yet they go out there sharing the same thick as mince brain cell when the bat is in their hand in Test cricket. We used to be able to largely rely on Wagner to fight hard, but even he’s been infected with mince lately.
A large part of the reason is that he's had more innings batting at 10 (79) than anyone else (2nd is Bedi with 69).
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
This is a ridiculous stat. It cannot possibly be true.
(and yet AndrewB is one of the forum's preeeminent statkeepers who triple checks their work so i guess it is?!! true pope isn't catholic hours)
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
That's really quite astounding.
I thought I should check the Pope stat; it does seem to be true...
108 players have scored 1000+ runs for England; apart from January, at least 7 were born in each month... in fact, every other month has at least one player with 4000+ runs (the second lowest is February: Matt Prior with 4099).
If 105* people have achieved some feat, the probability that none of them were born in some specific month is about 1 in 800.
*Pope was the 106th - Malan and Crawley have joined the list since.
108 players have scored 1000+ runs for England; apart from January, at least 7 were born in each month... in fact, every other month has at least one player with 4000+ runs (the second lowest is February: Matt Prior with 4099).
If 105* people have achieved some feat, the probability that none of them were born in some specific month is about 1 in 800.
*Pope was the 106th - Malan and Crawley have joined the list since.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
I've read articles saying kids born in certain months are more successful in certain sports because they are bigger/faster than those who might be 8 or 9 months younger and more likely to be picked in rep teams from a young age and start on the path to success. For example, in NZ for a lot of sports a kid who is born in January one year could play in a lower grade (and dominate it) than his/her friend born in December. I don't know if a similar phenomenon has happened in this case, but if England uses different months for grading due to northern hemisphere seasons.
Last edited: