Best six hitters

[marc71178]

Marc. Cairns is the best. End of argument...

Erm no, and no.

 

[luckyeddie]

Marc. Cairns is the best. End of argument...

Vacuous statement - end of point.

 

[thierry henry]

*smacks head against brick wall*

This argument is unbelievable. It's about six-hitting. It's not about who had the best, errrm, "aura". It's not about who "could have hit the most sixes if he wanted to". It's not about who was the better batsman.

The stats are so incredibly conclusive that the Cairns V Richards argument is simply ludicrous.

 

[Neil Pickup]

The same stats that "conclusively" prove Cairns better than Richards also "conclusively" prove Holding better than Cairns.

Did you read a single word of hellnback's post?

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

The same stats that "conclusively" prove Cairns better than Richards also "conclusively" prove Holding better than Cairns.

Did you read a single word of hellnback's post?

how do they prove that Holding better than Cairns?

and Thierry Henry,this arguement is far from over.

 

[age_master]

Cairns is the best. End of argument...

what about Richards is the best. End of argument :P

 

[thierry henry]

Neil, the stats don't conclusively prove that Holding is better than Cairns at all. How did you come up with that? Holding has hit 1/3 of the sixes Cairns has. It doesn't compare at all to the Cairns/Richards argument, where they have hit almost the same amount of sixes (with Cairns adding more to his tally today.)

Saying Richards was a better six hitter (at TEST LEVEL, which is ALL I am talking about here) is like saying that a batsman who averages 30 was better than a batsman who averages 60. Saying that Holding is better than Cairns is like saying that a batsman who averaged 65 over a 10 test career was better than a batsman who averaged 60 over an 80 test career. Crazy stuff.

And another thing- to say that Richards was disadvantaged by batting up the order against the new ball is ridiculous.

Seriously, think about it.

Compare the NZ teams of Cairns' era to the WI teams of Richards' era, and tell me which of the two had more opportunities to bat positively. How often do you think Richards came in with his team in a good position? How often do you think Cairns has come in with NZ 50/5? How much faith do you think Richards was able to put in his teammates compared to Cairns, enabling Richards to bat far more freely?

Seriously, Richards could hardly have had more conducive conditions for six hitting, playing in one of the greatest sides of all time, whereas Cairns has had to play in an often mediocre (or worse) side and regularly been expected to dig NZ out of holes. When you also consider how freely Richards played, it would be more than reasonable to suggest that 84 test match sixes was pretty much his lot. Cairns, with the odds stacked against him, has racked up almost the same number of sixes in a far shorter number of tests while scoring far less runs. Truth is, Richards has this "aura", and people are scared to rank someone like Cairns above him, even in something as minor as six-hitting.

 

[luckyeddie]

When this topic started, it was following a performance by Cairns in a one-day international. Now you say that you are just talking about tests.

I'm confused - I'm also intrigued how you can say "Cairns, with the odds stacked against him..." - when is batting down the order a disadvantage when it comes to hitting sixes? Batting with the tail normally gives a player a little more license to bring out the long handle, especially when it's 9-10-J at the other end. Or does he do it blindfolded? One hand tied behind his back?

If so, put me down for Cairns.

Otherwise, put me down as a vote for Richards.

 

[thierry henry]

Actually the thread started simply because I thought Cairns was the best six hitter in international cricket history, having looked at the stats. I'm willing to concede that someone else, perhaps Afridi, is the best ever in one-dayers, but the discussion has focused on tests for a while now.

Ok, so let me surmise your point of view. You are saying that Richards was better simply because he batted higher up the order. This, in your opinion, makes up for the fact that Cairns, on any given ball in his career, is/was approximately 3 times more likely to hit a six. 3 TIMES MORE LIKELY, and they have each hit almost the same amount of sixes. And you honestly think that this stacks up objectively?

 

[thierry henry]

And do you honestly not think that batting in one of the strongest line-ups of all time gave Richards a bit of license to go for the big shots as well? It's not as though he liked to hold back.

 

[luckyeddie]

Ok, so let me surmise your point of view. You are saying that Richards was better simply because he batted higher up the order. This, in your opinion, makes up for the fact that Cairns, on any given ball in his career, is/was approximately 3 times more likely to hit a six. 3 TIMES MORE LIKELY, and they have each hit almost the same amount of sixes. And you honestly think that this stacks up objectively?

No, I did not say that at all. You cannot make such an inference from what I said. What you cannot account for, with the greatest respect to Cairns, is that Richards did not go out specifically to target hitting sixes - he was a batsman, Cairns is a hitter.

You started this whole unfathomable thread by stating that 'Cairns is the best six-hitter in the world today, possibly the best of his generation' - and, you know what, there was little disagreement. But, like another Frenchman, Napoleon, you got greedy. You tried to conquer Russia, or in this case, another generation, namely Viv's - different times, a different game, and there is, as ever, no way of comparing the two statistically.

Well, Moscow's thataway, and winter's coming.

 

[Linda]

This may sound naive, but why dont you just conclude that Richards was the best in his time, and Cairns is in his time. It has been done before, Im sure. Comparing eras gets you nowhere, except possibly deeper down your hole.

 

[Arrow]

No, I did not say that at all. You cannot make such an inference from what I said. What you cannot account for, with the greatest respect to Cairns, is that Richards did not go out specifically to target hitting sixes - he was a batsman, Cairns is a hitter.
.

Very True.

 

[MG_FAN]

I saw Shane Lee hit the MM sign at Manuka a while ago and that was a BIG hit!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Neil, the stats don't conclusively prove that Holding is better than Cairns at all. How did you come up with that? Holding has hit 1/3 of the sixes Cairns has. It doesn't compare at all to the Cairns/Richards argument, where they have hit almost the same amount of sixes (with Cairns adding more to his tally today.)

I was pointing out that stats can be used any way someone wants them to.

 

[Tom Halsey]

lol Marc.

Cairns has hit more or less the same amount as sixes as Richards, with about 1/3 the runs and 1/2 the innings. Face it, you have a preconception here about Richards and no argument is going to change it.

I have not posted much on this thread, but here goes.

I haven't got stats to back my argument up (too lazy) but IMO Kluzener is the best six hitter.

He could pretty much hit a 6 whenever he wants, he just mixes it up a bit too. Cairns appears to just try and hit 6's the whole time.

True good 6 hitter, but Kluzener is better IMO.

 

[thierry henry]

You started this whole unfathomable thread by stating that 'Cairns is the best six-hitter in the world today, possibly the best of his generation' - and, you know what, there was little disagreement. But, like another Frenchman, Napoleon, you got greedy. You tried to conquer Russia, or in this case, another generation, namely Viv's - different times, a different game, and there is, as ever, no way of comparing the two statistically.

I'm not trying to "conquer" anything (yes, I realise you were taking the mickey but still, I think this is relevant). The problem here is that people get over emotional about these things. People who saw Viv in all his pomp probably take great offence at some Kiwi upstart being considered better than him at anything.

There is however most definitely a way of comparing them statistically, and there's only one person winning that battle. If you merely want to say that comparing players from different eras is inherently wrong, than do so. However, you tried to argue pro-Viv, which surely is just as silly (sillier?) as me arguing pro-Cairns. There is no way you can rate Richards as the better test match six-hitter from an objective standpoint.

 

[thierry henry]

As for the idea that Cairns is "just a hitter" and the likes of Klusener and Richards aren't/weren't, I'm going to try to let that go, because it's pretty obvious that that statement is merely a response to, and excuse for, Cairns' statistical prominence.

 

[Eclipse]

I saw Shane Lee hit the MM sign at Manuka a while ago and that was a BIG hit!

Yeah Shane Lee is probably the most powerfull batsman I have ever seen pitty he was souch a failure at International level.

Both Shane and Brett are massive hitters of the ball when they make good contact.

Brett hit the bigest six I have ever seen.

 

[marc71178]

There is however most definitely a way of comparing them statistically, and there's only one person winning that battle.

You mean the one at the top of the list?