by Maxx » Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:32:04
> > Perhaps he couldn't be arsed to play at his best in FC.
> As likely as an unpowered helicopter gliding to a safe landing. Have you
> ever seen SKW be anything except ultra competitive?
> alvey
by Mad Hamis » Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:06:04
>Perhaps he couldn't be arsed to play at his best in FC.
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
by Adam Harve » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 04:22:15
>>> Presumably a bit of both, but the full reasons are a mystery to me.
>>Perhaps he couldn't be arsed to play at his best in FC.
> Once he started playing internationals and improving (and he improved a
> lot over his first 10 or 15 tests) how many Shield matches did he get to
> play?
I was intrigued by this, so I pulled out his SS stats from CricketArchive
and broke it down season by season:
Mts Overs Runs Wkts BB Avg
1990/91 1 37.0 102 1 1/41 102.00
1991/92 6 223.3 569 12 4/75 47.41
1992/93 4 151.3 486 12 5/49 40.50
1993/94 4 247.4 643 27 6/42 23.81
1994/95 2 117.1 265 13 5/104 20.38
1995/96 3 170.1 426 11 5/122 38.72
1996/97 2 97.0 201 5 3/25 40.20
1997/98 3 141.0 488 8 3/70 61.00
1998/99 4 139.1 521 8 2/80 65.12
1999/00 DNP
2000/01 2 47.5 140 9 5/49 15.55
2001/02 2 75.1 253 6 4/118 42.16
2002/03 2 67.0 181 6 3/54 30.16
2003/04 1 36.0 100 6 4/51 16.66
2004/05 4 155.3 403 11 3/50 36.63
2005/06 3 133.3 396 16 7/100 24.75
2006/07 3 136.3 417 10 5/103 41.70
Career 46 1975.4 5591 161 7/100 34.72
Certainly, the early part of SKW's career had some pretty poor numbers,
and 1993 was an obvious watershed for him. The part I find interesting is
that his numbers after 1995 are mostly ordinary. In particular, the
striking part is that they're a bit better than most of the spinners
going around the SS now, but not massively better, and distinctly poor by
worldwide standards.
My guess is that it's a little of everything in the thread: Australia's a
difficult place to bowl spin (particularly on the average domestic pitch,
which tends to be seam or batsman friendly, but very rarely spin
friendly), SKW was a big game player (so playing in front of 200 people
probably didn't do much for him), and Australian batsmen probably not
being as overawed by him as some of their international counterparts.
As an aside, Macgill averaged around 33-34 (I can't be bothered doing a
full breakdown there, sorry), which backs up that the SS isn't an easy
place to be a spinner.
Adam, noting that this makes Ashton Agar's 19 wickets at 28.42 this
season seems pretty damned good all of a sudden.
by jzfredrick » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 06:57:56
[snipped and read, thanks]
by Adam Harve » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:08:28
> [snipped and read, thanks]
>> Adam, noting that this makes Ashton Agar's 19 wickets at 28.42 this
>> season seems pretty damned good all of a sudden.
> I do think the SS batting standards have dropped, though. I imagine the
> 1993/4 Warnie would be taking a shed load of wickets in today's SS.
I was being cheeky, really: Glenn Maxwell and Adam Zampa both have <30
averages in the season just gone too (albeit from limited games), and I
don't see anyone holding them up as being Test ready bowlers either (as
Maxwell's just proven in India).
Adam
by Mike Holman » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:04:54
>> Good point, the ***ing drug cheat ;)
>> He took 276 first class wickets for Hampshire with an average of 25.59, so I guess I can't blame him "hiding his best" from English FC players.
>May be this explains it. Whenever he got to play English players (who
>are ***against spin), he got to boost his average.
Cheers,
Mike
--
by alve » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:21:40
>> [snipped and read, thanks]
>>> Adam, noting that this makes Ashton Agar's 19 wickets at 28.42 this
>>> season seems pretty damned good all of a sudden.
>> I do think the SS batting standards have dropped, though. I imagine the
>> 1993/4 Warnie would be taking a shed load of wickets in today's SS.
> I agree completely.
> I was being cheeky, really: Glenn Maxwell and Adam Zampa both have <30
> averages in the season just gone too (albeit from limited games), and I
> don't see anyone holding them up as being Test ready bowlers either (as
> Maxwell's just proven in India).
alvey
by alve » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:35:57
>> Good point, the ***ing drug cheat ;)
>> He took 276 first class wickets for Hampshire with an average of 25.59, so I guess I can't blame him "hiding his best" from English FC players.
> May be this explains it. Whenever he got to play English players (who
> are ***against spin), he got to boost his average.
> I always wonder what so great about the 'ball of the century'. After
> all it was only Gatting.
alvey
by alve » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:38:38
> Adam, noting that this makes Ashton Agar's 19 wickets at 28.42 this
> season seems pretty damned good all of a sudden.
by Mike Holman » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:43:27
>>>> > Perhaps he couldn't be arsed to play at his best in FC.
>>>> As likely as an unpowered helicopter gliding to a safe landing. Have you
>>>> ever seen SKW be anything except ultra competitive?
>>> Good point, the ***ing drug cheat ;)
>>> He took 276 first class wickets for Hampshire with an average of 25.59, so I guess I can't blame him "hiding his best" from English FC players.
>> May be this explains it. Whenever he got to play English players (who
>> are ***against spin), he got to boost his average.
>> I always wonder what so great about the 'ball of the century'. After
>> all it was only Gatting.
>Idiot. That ball would've got Stuart Law out.
Cheers,
Mike
--
by alve » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:22:10
>>>>> > Perhaps he couldn't be arsed to play at his best in FC.
>>>>> As likely as an unpowered helicopter gliding to a safe landing. Have you
>>>>> ever seen SKW be anything except ultra competitive?
>>>> Good point, the ***ing drug cheat ;)
>>>> He took 276 first class wickets for Hampshire with an average of 25.59, so I guess I can't blame him "hiding his best" from English FC players.
>>> May be this explains it. Whenever he got to play English players (who
>>> are ***against spin), he got to boost his average.
>>> I always wonder what so great about the 'ball of the century'. After
>>> all it was only Gatting.
>>Idiot. That ball would've got Stuart Law out.
> And probably Bradman too.
by RSX » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:45:05
> 'Twas a very special delivery, in and of itself. The fact that it was his very first Ashes delivery in England was just the cherry.
by mohandasme.. » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:04:03
> > > I always wonder what so great about the 'ball of the century'. After
> > > all it was only Gatting.
> > 'Twas a very special delivery, in and of itself. The fact that it was his very first Ashes delivery in England was just the cherry.
> In the recent Ind-Aus series, Gavaskar and Sastri were answering
> viewers questions. One to Sunny was: What in his opinion was the ball
> of the century bowled to a non-english batsman? He said the one he saw
> (probably as a spectator) Chandra bowing an Australian batsman in 64
> or about (I think Bombay test). He named the Austrlian batmen but
> don't remember the name. He said it was a similar to Gatting bowled
> Warne.
by eusebiu » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:05:16
> Would be interesting to see the descending order of (Test - FC) Differentials.
> Brian Lawrence, Aslam or Mohan?
by gokri » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 23:27:09
>> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>>>>>>> Perhaps he couldn't be arsed to play at his best in FC.
>>>>>> As likely as an unpowered helicopter gliding to a safe landing. Have you
>>>>>> ever seen SKW be anything except ultra competitive?
>>>>> Good point, the ***ing drug cheat ;)
>>>>> He took 276 first class wickets for Hampshire with an average of 25.59, so I guess I can't blame him "hiding his best" from English FC players.
>>>> May be this explains it. Whenever he got to play English players (who
>>>> are ***against spin), he got to boost his average.
>>>> I always wonder what so great about the 'ball of the century'. After
>>>> all it was only Gatting.
>>> Idiot. That ball would've got Stuart Law out.
>> And probably Bradman too.
> Who?
Thanks,
--gokrix