My Test & ODI Teams for 2003

[Adamc]

Interesting - Bond, sublime against the Aussies? As far as I noticed he averaged 70 against them and the sublime figures came elsewhere when not very difficult to get (v Bangladesh's excuse for a Test-standard batting-line-up and v India on seamers' paradises). Australia and Sri Lanka are the only ones who've actually played Bond well.
As for Murali, we can discuss it in other threads, but the two main questions: have you read the relevant rules, and have you made an extensive study of his action?

I think he was referring to the WC game, even though he does say it is his test team. Bond struggled against Aus in 2001/02 test series, but he was on debut, so that's hardly surprising.

 

[Craig]

My Test team of the year:

MH Richardson (Greame Smith is unlucky despite his obvious flaw but Richardson is Mr dependable)
ML Hayden (runs are runs I guess)
RT Ponting
*BC Lara (He is better off at 4)
R Dravid
VVS Laxman
+RD Jacobs (world's most under-rated 'keeper - preforms when the team needs him to)
SM Pollock
Shoiab Akhtar
M Muralitharan
DR Tuffey (Has bowled well this year)

12th man: S Chanderpaul

Chanders is very unlucky

ODI side coming later.

 

[Richard]

IMO Richardson is a flat-track bully. Smith has at least conquered more challenging bowling.

 

[Richard]

I think he was referring to the WC game, even though he does say it is his test team. Bond struggled against Aus in 2001/02 test series, but he was on debut, so that's hardly surprising.

I think it's far more significant that it's one of only two occasions he's faced decent batting outside totally seam-easy conditions and on both occasions he's not done well at all. He got away with playing in India in October, of course.

 

[Richard]

Well, Sangakkara said himself that he can pick everything Murali bowls. At the moment I can see no great reason to disbelieve him. It is only natural that after keeping to Murali for up to 5 days straight that he would work out some way of picking him, as I imagine any decent keeper would do.

A 'keeper stands in exactly the same position as a batsman (and he's got a batsman in front of him) and there's no reason why he should be able to do what a batsman has not.

 

[Adamc]

A 'keeper stands in exactly the same position as a batsman (and he's got a batsman in front of him) and there's no reason why he should be able to do what a batsman has not.

Most batsman haven't had the obvious advantage of watching Murali bowl virtually every day for the last few years.

 

[marc71178]

IMO Richardson is a flat-track bully. Smith has at least conquered more challenging bowling.

He has?

vs Aus, Ban Pak and SL Richardson averages more.
vs Eng and WI, Smith averages more.

Smith hasn't played India or Zim.

So Eng and WI are more challenging than Aus, Pak and SL are they?

 

[Craig]

My Test team of the year:

MH Richardson (Greame Smith is unlucky despite his obvious flaw but Richardson is Mr dependable)
ML Hayden (runs are runs I guess)
RT Ponting
*BC Lara (He is better off at 4)
R Dravid
VVS Laxman
+RD Jacobs (world's most under-rated 'keeper - preforms when the team needs him to)
SM Pollock
Shoiab Akhtar
M Muralitharan
DR Tuffey (Has bowled well this year)

12th man: S Chanderpaul

Chanders is very unlucky

ODI side coming later.

Actually I swap Tuffey and Murali around.

 

[Tim]

Richardson may bat slowly...but he's saved NZ from embarassment a number of times & he can definately say he was a significant factor in NZ's rise to #3 and claim he wasn't the reason why we're now down to #5.

And he ain't no flat track bully....didn't you see his innings of 72 last year at Hamilton against India on that green mine-field..obviously not?

Lou Vincent isn't under-achieving!, he's currently over-achieving I think...how he's managed to score 2 test centuries with his FC record is quite unbelievable.

 

[Craig]

And then there was his hundred against Pakistan in 00/01. And that wasnt an easy wicket but Matt Bell batting well on it with his weird stance.

 

[iamdavid]

Matt Bell

One of the most substandard international cricketers of the last decade (excluding Zimbabwe & Bangladesh )

 

[Craig]

I know. Seen his stance?

Actually I know Bell didnt play Bangladesh and I dont think he has played any against Zimbabwe.

 

[Tim]

I read an interesting stat over at Cricinfo which said that since 1995, Mark Richardson & Mike Atherton have been the two most consistent openers at scoring more than 10 runs per innings.

 

[Richard]

He has?

vs Aus, Ban Pak and SL Richardson averages more.
vs Eng and WI, Smith averages more.

Smith hasn't played India or Zim.

So Eng and WI are more challenging than Aus, Pak and SL are they?

The tracks in Sri Lanka and Australia offered no seam, turn or unevennes (and I did mention "conquered" - with an average of 30 for the series, Richardson hardly did) and nor did those he played Pakistan on. He played India and Zimbabwe on like wickets, too.
Smith has played virtually all his Tests on these type, but he scored 251 against England (after being dropped by Hussain) on a wicket that had been seaming around all day.
Very rarely these days do you get bowlers capable of exploiting these conditions.
As you can see, neither of them has exactly had hard conditions very often, but Smith averages more and has played in tough conditions slightly more often.
Generalised comparisons of teams don't mean much. You've got to look at individual instances. And the fact is there's not much difference between most attacks on the typical wicket of these two batsman's careers.

 

[Richard]

Most batsman haven't had the obvious advantage of watching Murali bowl virtually every day for the last few years.

Watch him bowl as often as you like, it doesn't make an unpickable change into a pickable one.

 

[Richard]

Richardson may bat slowly...but he's saved NZ from embarassment a number of times & he can definately say he was a significant factor in NZ's rise to #3 and claim he wasn't the reason why we're now down to #5.

And he ain't no flat track bully....didn't you see his innings of 72 last year at Hamilton against India on that green mine-field..obviously not?

Lou Vincent isn't under-achieving!, he's currently over-achieving I think...how he's managed to score 2 test centuries with his FC record is quite unbelievable.

Whoever said Vincent was underachieving needs to take a check - I thought very highly of him after his Test debut. Naturally that was before I looked at his First-Class average.
I didn't see the 72 at WP Trust Park, but I naturally read the pitch-reports.
He played well then, no denying it, but almost every Test he's scored runs on throughout his career has offered virtually nothing in the way of seam, turn or uneven bounce:
India in India: if a result in 7 days would have been possible I'd like to have seen it. Not OOTQ, of course, but if a 7-day game had been scheduled.
Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka: very, very similar to the tracks in India.
India in New Zealand: as I say, fair enough.
West Indies in West Indies: we all know what typical Caribbean tracks are like.
Pakistan in Pakistan and England in New Zealand: failed.
Australia in Australia: didn't do especially well, but got 2(?) half-centuries. Naturally, all very easy batting.
Pakistan in New Zealand: all those wickets were drop-in? Certainly one totally dead wicket and two others that didn't seem to offer much.
South Africa in South Africa: flat wickets, can't even remember if he did that well.
Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe: even if there had been any assistance in the pitches, would the Zimbabweans have been good enough to exploit it?

 

[marc71178]

The tracks in Sri Lanka and Australia offered no seam, turn or unevennes (and I did mention "conquered" - with an average of 30 for the series, Richardson hardly did) and nor did those he played Pakistan on. He played India and Zimbabwe on like wickets, too.
Smith has played virtually all his Tests on these type, but he scored 251 against England (after being dropped by Hussain) on a wicket that had been seaming around all day.
Very rarely these days do you get bowlers capable of exploiting these conditions.
As you can see, neither of them has exactly had hard conditions very often, but Smith averages more and has played in tough conditions slightly more often.
Generalised comparisons of teams don't mean much. You've got to look at individual instances. And the fact is there's not much difference between most attacks on the typical wicket of these two batsman's careers.

You really are the most blinkered person I've ever seen.

You say Smith has conquered more challenging bowling, therefore rating WI and Eng as more challenging than Aus, Pak and SL.

That is quite obviously a load of rubbish as Aus and Pak are 2 of the strongest attacks around, and SL have the best spinner in the World (albeit not a lot else)

How are England and the West Indian bowlers more challenging than that lot?

 

[Richard]

No, I never said I rate WI and Eng more challenging than Aus, Pak and SL - they were just words you attempted to put in my mouth.
Rather than stereotyping, I looked at the individual circumstances. I didn't just assume that Chaminda, Murali, Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib and Warne were all playing and bowling as well as they can.

 

[Bazza]

I agree on Richardson - he is so consistent - always seems to get at least 20 or 30.

He's a strange one - came into test cricket quite late and I believe only a couple of years after deciding to concentrate on being a batsman (have I got that right Kiwis?). I remember him coming England with NZ A and making a big score against Hampshire if I recall. People said then he looked a great player and deserved a chance for NZ - he got it and hasn't looked back!

It's incredible he's never been given a proper go in ODIs, I can remember Tim and others saying NZ have been crying out for openers in both forms.

28 48 3 2206 145 49.02 38.23 3 17

That's his test record - averaging 49 is impressive whoever you are but when you play half your games in NZ, it's no wonder Richardson is actually rated 8th in the world. In fact Richardson has easily the best average of any NZer in history - Reid is next on 46, then come Crowe, Turner, Jones, McMillan and Sutcliffe. They are the only Kiwis to average over 40 throughout a career.

 

[Craig]

Yep he was a left-arm spinner, got the yips and turned to batting.