Cameron Green

[DaRick]

Voges played his cricket over the space of 2 years almost exclusively against the West Indies and New Zealand. Like anyone he needs to have context applied to his figures. What makes for more of an outlier, 24 tests when someone is at their batting peak condensed into a short period or 24 matches spread out over 7 years?

Same as I’d apply context to Bradman who played against 4 different opponents but played 3 of them exclusively in australia and all of them when they were very poor teams.

Not that I think he’s overrated or anything like that the guy is clearly the best batsman to ever play the game but anyone with a deep love of both the sport itself and the figures of those who’ve played it should be able to attach context to the way in which those figures were achieved.

It’s not just Voges or Bradman or whoever that those contextual analyses should be attached to. It’s everyone.

Murali rightly has his numbers looked at closely because he took a whole bunch of wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. And so he should, he profited greatly from those games. Unfortunately often the people doing that are doing it in order to glorify Shane Warne. They seem to forget that 170 wickets of Warne’s came against the next worst team for the majority of his career.

Does it make Warne overrated? Not by a long stretch, nowhere near it. But it adds context.

RE 1990's ENG, they were big underachievers but averaged around mid-table, and they could pull a rabbit out of the hat in hostile/unfavourable circumstances once in a while (usually in dead rubbers, but still). They did deserve to be playing Test cricket, even though they should have done better.

BAN shouldn't have even been playing Test cricket while Murali played - they were almost always beaten heavily, both home and away. As for Zimbabwe, after Flower/Streak/Olonga left (2003-04) they became worse than BAN, which says it all, really.

I don't wish to knock Murali - I respect the man for his persistence, both on the field and in the face of some very hostile publicity, and he could turn the ball on glass - but 1990's ENG don't deserve to be compared with 2000's ZIM/BAN.

 

[PhatBoy]

RE 1990's ENG, they were big underachievers but averaged around mid-table, and they could pull a rabbit out of the hat in hostile/unfavourable circumstances once in a while (usually in dead rubbers, but still). They did deserve to be playing Test cricket, even though they should have done better.

BAN shouldn't have even been playing Test cricket while Murali played - they were almost always beaten heavily, both home and away. As for Zimbabwe, after Flower/Streak/Olonga left (2003-04) they became worse than BAN, which says it all, really.

I don't wish to knock Murali - I respect the man for his persistence, both on the field and in the face of some very hostile publicity, and he could turn the ball on glass - but 1990's ENG don't deserve to be compared with 2000's ZIM/BAN.

No probably not. But as players of spin they were barely above minnow status.

Their best batsmen for much of the decade were Atherton who actually COULD play spin, but was always back in the hutch courtesy of McGrath, Alex Stewart who was garbage against spin, Robin Smith who was the most brutal cutter of a cricket ball I ever saw but utterly at sea against spin, Gatting who was well past his best. Thorpe was the lone ‘good’ player of spin in that side after Gooch retired. The likes of Hick, Crawley, Ramprakash etc we’re just awful.

No they weren’t as bad as Bangladesh or Zimbabwe by any stretch. But they were bad. So while it doesn’t do a Warne Murali comparison any favours realistically, it does at least put some context on warne’s figures as well.

 

[DaRick]

No probably not. But as players of spin they were barely above minnow status.

Their best batsmen for much of the decade were Atherton who actually COULD play spin, but was always back in the hutch courtesy of McGrath, Alex Stewart who was garbage against spin, Robin Smith who was the most brutal cutter of a cricket ball I ever saw but utterly at sea against spin, Gatting who was well past his best. Thorpe was the lone ‘good’ player of spin in that side after Gooch retired. The likes of Hick, Crawley, Ramprakash etc we’re just awful.

No they weren’t as bad as Bangladesh or Zimbabwe by any stretch. But they were bad. So while it doesn’t do a Warne Murali comparison any favours realistically, it does at least put some context on warne’s figures as well.

Stewart and Smith are fair enough, but Hick was actually a very good player of spin (he scored 180 in India) and like Ramprakash (who fared pretty well against AUS actually) his failings were generally temperamental, not technical. I don't remember much about Crawley against spin per se, only that he'd pick you off if you strayed onto his pads but was awful outside offstump.

But yes, I accept that Warne's figures aren't without their blemishes in general.

 

[Falconista]

Why the obsession with Green averaging under 30 with the ball?

You have to be a damn good player, almost always a specialist bowler, to achieve this. Geoff Lawson, Brett Lee, Nathan Lyon and Peter Siddle are some Australians that didn't manage it yet were all serviceable bowlers. If Green averages in the 30-35 range with the ball, he'll be very valuable.

 

[DaRick]

Why the obsession with Green averaging under 30 with the ball?

You have to be a damn good player, almost always a specialist bowler, to achieve this. Geoff Lawson, Brett Lee, Nathan Lyon and Peter Siddle are some Australians that didn't manage it yet were all serviceable bowlers. If Green averages in the 30-35 range with the ball, he'll be very valuable.

I think the speculation about Green averaging under 30 with the ball is based on his raw ability. He's sharp, swings the ball, is pretty accurate and extracts considerable natural bounce. Besides, there's nothing wrong with dreaming about it!

RE Lawson/Siddle, they were solid servants but neither had Green's array of abilities (bounce in particular), Lee was a big underachiever and Lyon's an off-spinner who's plying his trade in a country which is quite hostile to them.

That said, I agree that if Green averages a tick above 30, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that in and of itself, and he'd still be a valuable fourth bowler.

 

[Sphynx]

Why the obsession with Green averaging under 30 with the ball?

You have to be a damn good player, almost always a specialist bowler, to achieve this. Geoff Lawson, Brett Lee, Nathan Lyon and Peter Siddle are some Australians that didn't manage it yet were all serviceable bowlers. If Green averages in the 30-35 range with the ball, he'll be very valuable.

I don’t think it’s an obsession.

He seems like he’s going to have a naturally low economy rate, which bodes well for his average.

Given he bowls a tight line and length, heavy ball and can bounce it off a good length. He’s also quick enough to cause issue with that bounce.

All the players you quoted weren’t particularly tight bowlers.

 

[corbies]

Greens issue with averaging under 30 is that it is unlikely that he'll ever be allowed to bowl with the new ball or even with a ball that is less than 15/20 overs old. The new ball is a massive average lowerer for pace bowlers.

 

[Sphynx]

Greens issue with averaging under 30 is that it is unlikely that he'll ever be allowed to bowl with the new ball or even with a ball that is less than 15/20 overs old. The new ball is a massive average lowerer for pace bowlers.

That depends, he's pretty young and who knows how his batting ends up.

He might end up the third seamer at some point in his career depending on the depth of Australian fast bowling.

We've had a very settled bowling lineup for the last decade, but prior to that we played home series with a bowling attack of Mitchell Johnson, Doug Bollinger, Peter Siddle and Nathan Hauritz.

Siddle played 60+ tests and took 200+ wickets, opened the bowling plenty of times, I think he ends up statistically far inferior to Green tb, Siddle had an average of 30 and a SR 60+.

 

[1990crow]

That depends, he's pretty young and who knows how his batting ends up.

He might end up the third seamer at some point in his career depending on the depth of Australian fast bowling.

We've had a very settled bowling lineup for the last decade, but prior to that we played home series with a bowling attack of Mitchell Johnson, Doug Bollinger, Peter Siddle and Nathan Hauritz.

Siddle played 60+ tests and took 200+ wickets, opened the bowling plenty of times, I think he ends up statistically far inferior to Green tb, Siddle had an average of 30 and a SR 60+.

I watched a kayo mini classic game where we have that lineup and yeah it's chalk and cheese vs what we dished up against the POMS this year.
The fact Green looks every bit as good as our current front liners bodes well for his long term average.
Proof will be in the pudding though, and how he goes oversees will be fascinating.

 

[Sphynx]

No probably not. But as players of spin they were barely above minnow status.

Their best batsmen for much of the decade were Atherton who actually COULD play spin, but was always back in the hutch courtesy of McGrath, Alex Stewart who was garbage against spin, Robin Smith who was the most brutal cutter of a cricket ball I ever saw but utterly at sea against spin, Gatting who was well past his best. Thorpe was the lone ‘good’ player of spin in that side after Gooch retired. The likes of Hick, Crawley, Ramprakash etc we’re just awful.

No they weren’t as bad as Bangladesh or Zimbabwe by any stretch. But they were bad. So while it doesn’t do a Warne Murali comparison any favours realistically, it does at least put some context on warne’s figures as well.

As players of spin they were minnow status?

That's a ridiculously long bow to bring to the argument.

In fairness to England, they played a single subcontinent tour in the entire 90's. A tour of India in 93'.

Between 2000-2005 they lost a single game in the subcontinent despite touring India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

They beat India away in 85'.

There's not really a huge sample size.

If you are purely basing it off their performances against Warne on English and Australian pitches, that's pretty unfair to Warnes bowling.

Warne and Murali had great records in England however Kumble, Harbhajan, Herath and Mushie all had terrible records there which would indicate it was more to do with Warne and Murali being great bowlers than the English being complete mugs.

Warne and Murali both had similar great records away in New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies and Sri Linka. All minnows too?

 

[PhatBoy]

As players of spin they were minnow status?

That's a ridiculously long bow to bring to the argument.

In fairness to England, they played a single subcontinent tour in the entire 90's. A tour of India in 93'.

Between 2000-2005 they lost a single game in the subcontinent despite touring India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

They beat India away in 85'.

There's not really a huge sample size.

If you are purely basing it off their performances against Warne on English and Australian pitches, that's pretty unfair to Warnes bowling.

Warne and Murali had great records in England however Kumble, Harbhajan, Herath and Mushie all had terrible records there which would indicate it was more to do with Warne and Murali being great bowlers than the English being complete mugs.

Warne and Murali both had similar great records away in New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies and Sri Linka. All minnows too?

No. Those teams were actually good at various stages of the 90s.

Zimbabwe and New Zealand were the only worst performed teams in the 1990s - and New Zealand played 30 less tests or something than England and the win/loss ratio difference between them is negligible so it’s not as though England didn’t have a lot of opportunity to get it right.

Even worse: 11 of England’s 26 wins for the decade came before they’d even played against Shane Warne. They won 15 tests in 7 years from his first encounter with them.

For context, the current West Indies team have won the same amount in the last 5 years. And we are very very bad.

 

[Sphynx]

No. Those teams were actually good at various stages of the 90s.

Zimbabwe and New Zealand were the only worst performed teams in the 1990s - and New Zealand played 30 less tests or something than England and the win/loss ratio difference between them is negligible so it’s not as though England didn’t have a lot of opportunity to get it right.

Even worse: 11 of England’s 26 wins for the decade came before they’d even played against Shane Warne. They won 15 tests in 7 years from his first encounter with them.

For context, the current West Indies team have won the same amount in the last 5 years. And we are very very bad.

For context, about 70% of the test cricket England played in the 90's was against the remnants of the great West Indian team and Australia, the beginning of one of the best sides of all time.

Context.

Their results are nowhere near as bad as you are making out. Plenty of won series and some bad results mainly against one of the best sides ever. 2-2 vs WI in 91' is a particularly strong result.

Performed well against a bloody strong South African side since reformation as well in that period.

 

[PhatBoy]

For context, about 70% of the test cricket England played in the 90's was against the remnants of the great West Indian team and Australia, the beginning of one of the best sides of all time.

Context.

Their results are nowhere near as bad as you are making out. Plenty of won series and some bad results mainly against one of the best sides ever. 2-2 vs WI in 91' is a particularly strong result.

Performed well against a bloody strong South African side since reformation as well in that period.

View attachment 1313617

So to cite their ineptitude or quality when they played Shane Warne you specifically go to a series before they played him?

Of their 15 wins between playing Warne for the first time, and the end of the decade:
1. Dead rubber vs Australia
2. Dead rubber vs West Indies
3. A win against NZ - one of 2 worse performing teams of the decade (and even that win was predictably followed by two draws to ‘thrash’ the powerhouse kiwi side 1-0)
4. To square a series vs SA. Lucky England’s roll call of great players of spin were switched on for that match….. against a five man SA pace attack.
5. Vs Australia in a dead rubber
6. Vs WI - in England in a live test. Again, how they coped with the famed WI spin attack is anyone’s guess. Carl was bowling hand grenades that day
7. Vs WI in England in a live test. Fair play they did draw the series.
8. Vs India, at home, a side who had never won a series in Australia, England or South Africa. And again they somehow conspired to draw the remaining tests in the series.
9/10: they beat NZ away twice. Fair enough, can only beat who you’re up against
11. They beat australia at Edbaston on the back of a double century from Hussain and a hundred from Thorpe. This was England’s best win of the decade and remained their only win against australia in a live test match between 1986-87 and 2005
12. A dead rubber win in the same series against Australia
13. A win at Queens Park Oval in a live test. Fair enough. They still got flogged 3-1 by a team who were about to lose 5-0 to South Africa.
14/15: they beat South Africa twice for a series win. Nothing wrong with that - SA were a good side then.
England yet again proved their spin handling credentials in a tough environment in which only 100 per cent of wickets were taken by pacemen across two tests.
16 - sorry I miscounted. They took another dead rubber test off australia in Melbourne. In a match Shane Warne didn’t play. In which Stuart MacGill took 7-145 for the match.

So a broad summary of their decade:

1 live test win against Australia
2 live test wins agains the West Indies in England
1 live test win away against West Indies
3 live test wins at home against SA
1 live test win at home against india
2 live test wins at home against NZ
2 live test wins away against NZ
A handful of dead rubber wins against Australia


Literally all this shows is that England had some ok players of pace bowling and some decent pacemen, which everybody knew anyway.

They were a bog ordinary side and they were stacked with numerous batsmen who were very ordinary against good spin bowling.

 

[PhatBoy]

England’s 1993-onwards record against teams not called Australia, West Indies and South Africa:

5 wins
10 losses
9 draws

 

[Sphynx]

So to cite their ineptitude or quality when they played Shane Warne you specifically go to a series before they played him?

Of their 15 wins between playing Warne for the first time, and the end of the decade:
1. Dead rubber vs Australia
2. Dead rubber vs West Indies
3. A win against NZ - one of 2 worse performing teams of the decade (and even that win was predictably followed by two draws to ‘thrash’ the powerhouse kiwi side 1-0)
4. To square a series vs SA. Lucky England’s roll call of great players of spin were switched on for that match….. against a five man SA pace attack.
5. Vs Australia in a dead rubber
6. Vs WI - in England in a live test. Again, how they coped with the famed WI spin attack is anyone’s guess. Carl was bowling hand grenades that day
7. Vs WI in England in a live test. Fair play they did draw the series.
8. Vs India, at home, a side who had never won a series in Australia, England or South Africa. And again they somehow conspired to draw the remaining tests in the series.
9/10: they beat NZ away twice. Fair enough, can only beat who you’re up against
11. They beat australia at Edbaston on the back of a double century from Hussain and a hundred from Thorpe. This was England’s best win of the decade and remained their only win against australia in a live test match between 1986-87 and 2005
12. A dead rubber win in the same series against Australia
13. A win at Queens Park Oval in a live test. Fair enough. They still got flogged 3-1 by a team who were about to lose 5-0 to South Africa.
14/15: they beat South Africa twice for a series win. Nothing wrong with that - SA were a good side then.
England yet again proved their spin handling credentials in a tough environment in which only 100 per cent of wickets were taken by pacemen across two tests.
16 - sorry I miscounted. They took another dead rubber test off australia in Melbourne. In a match Shane Warne didn’t play. In which Stuart MacGill took 7-145 for the match.

So a broad summary of their decade:

1 live test win against Australia
2 live test wins agains the West Indies in England
1 live test win away against West Indies
3 live test wins at home against SA
1 live test win at home against india
2 live test wins at home against NZ
2 live test wins away against NZ
A handful of dead rubber wins against Australia


Literally all this shows is that England had some ok players of pace bowling and some decent pacemen, which everybody knew anyway.

They were a bog ordinary side and they were stacked with numerous batsmen who were very ordinary against good spin bowling.

Lol, again, back to spin.

How many "great" spinners were there for them to come up against in the 90's?

As you said, NZ,Ban,WI, SAF don't count. They didn't have a decent spinner.

It was basically Warne and Murali.

Unless you count Mushie/Pakistan at that time.

Kumble got absolutely carted in England, I hope you aren't using him as the argument....

 

[DaRick]

So to cite their ineptitude or quality when they played Shane Warne you specifically go to a series before they played him?

Of their 15 wins between playing Warne for the first time, and the end of the decade:
1. Dead rubber vs Australia
2. Dead rubber vs West Indies
3. A win against NZ - one of 2 worse performing teams of the decade (and even that win was predictably followed by two draws to ‘thrash’ the powerhouse kiwi side 1-0)
4. To square a series vs SA. Lucky England’s roll call of great players of spin were switched on for that match….. against a five man SA pace attack.
5. Vs Australia in a dead rubber
6. Vs WI - in England in a live test. Again, how they coped with the famed WI spin attack is anyone’s guess. Carl was bowling hand grenades that day
7. Vs WI in England in a live test. Fair play they did draw the series.
8. Vs India, at home, a side who had never won a series in Australia, England or South Africa. And again they somehow conspired to draw the remaining tests in the series.
9/10: they beat NZ away twice. Fair enough, can only beat who you’re up against
11. They beat australia at Edbaston on the back of a double century from Hussain and a hundred from Thorpe. This was England’s best win of the decade and remained their only win against australia in a live test match between 1986-87 and 2005
12. A dead rubber win in the same series against Australia
13. A win at Queens Park Oval in a live test. Fair enough. They still got flogged 3-1 by a team who were about to lose 5-0 to South Africa.
14/15: they beat South Africa twice for a series win. Nothing wrong with that - SA were a good side then.
England yet again proved their spin handling credentials in a tough environment in which only 100 per cent of wickets were taken by pacemen across two tests.
16 - sorry I miscounted. They took another dead rubber test off australia in Melbourne. In a match Shane Warne didn’t play. In which Stuart MacGill took 7-145 for the match.

So a broad summary of their decade:

1 live test win against Australia
2 live test wins agains the West Indies in England
1 live test win away against West Indies
3 live test wins at home against SA
1 live test win at home against india
2 live test wins at home against NZ
2 live test wins away against NZ
A handful of dead rubber wins against Australia


Literally all this shows is that England had some ok players of pace bowling and some decent pacemen, which everybody knew anyway.

They were a bog ordinary side and they were stacked with numerous batsmen who were very ordinary against good spin bowling.

The heart of the matter is that, while the 1990's ENG side were big underachievers, Murali and Warne could make any side look stupid on their day. Also, Warne did have a lot of days in his prime (1993-1998) - and guess when 1990's ENG got to play him?

 

[PhatBoy]

Lol, again, back to spin.

How many "great" spinners were there for them to come up against in the 90's?

As you said, NZ,Ban,WI, SAF don't count. They didn't have a decent spinner.

It was basically Warne and Murali.

Unless you count Mushie/Pakistan at that time.

Kumble got absolutely carted in England, I hope you aren't using him as the argument....

He didn’t even spin the ball on Indian pitches how would he spin it in England? Yes Mushie spun the ball, I don’t know if England played Saqlain in their losses to Pakistan but he was a very good bowler as well.

So again what have you actually showed that disproves the theory that England were rank against the turning ball?

Why does it even bother you that match?

Fact: Shane Warne is the best spinner I, and most people have ever seen
Fact: like every cricketer his numbers have elements of inflation to them based on context and circumstance, one of those circumstances being that for the first two thirds of his career the team he played against most, were utterly inept against decent spin. They were fairly inept in general as highlighted by their numbers but they at least had some moments or parity using and facing pace bowling.

It’s not a knock on Warne - he took wickets for fun against South Africa as well who actually DID have batsmen who could play spin.

But it’s still a fact.

 

[PhatBoy]

The heart of the matter is that, while the 1990's ENG side were big underachievers, Murali and Warne could make any side look stupid on their day. Also, Warne did have a lot of days in his prime (1993-1998) - and guess when 1990's ENG got to play him?

Of course, he was the best spinner of all time there will be good players he makes look average. A team who conspired to draw consecutive tests against Zimbabwe (one was rain effected but they still managed to get bowled out for 160 in the first innings) is not a good team being made look average.

 

[Sphynx]

He didn’t even spin the ball on Indian pitches how would he spin it in England? Yes Mushie spun the ball, I don’t know if England played Saqlain in their losses to Pakistan but he was a very good bowler as well.

So again what have you actually showed that disproves the theory that England were rank against the turning ball?

Why does it even bother you that match?

Fact: Shane Warne is the best spinner I, and most people have ever seen
Fact: like every cricketer his numbers have elements of inflation to them based on context and circumstance, one of those circumstances being that for the first two thirds of his career the team he played against most, were utterly inept against decent spin. They were fairly inept in general as highlighted by their numbers but they at least had some moments or parity using and facing pace bowling.

It’s not a knock on Warne - he took wickets for fun against South Africa as well who actually DID have batsmen who could play spin.

But it’s still a fact.

Right, glad we've got to the bottom of it.

England were a minnow because they couldn't handle Warne and Murali at home (because they were basically the only spinners who could turn it in the 90's anyway), the two greatest wicket-takers of all time (let alone spinners). Even though Warne and Murali torched SAF, WI, SL, NZ all a similar way at home.

It doesn't bother me, it's just a really weird take.

 

[PhatBoy]

Right, glad we've got to the bottom of it.

England were a minnow because they couldn't handle Warne and Murali at home (because they were basically the only spinners who could turn it in the 90's anyway), the two greatest wicket-takers of all time (let alone spinners). Even though Warne and Murali torched SAF, WI, SL, NZ all a similar way at home.

It doesn't bother me, it's just a really weird take.

No, they were not a minnow, they were arguably and statistically the next worst team - or level with New Zealand, which is what I said in the first place

My whole point was that people often only apply context when it suits them and a good example of it is people who write off Murali because he took heaps of wickets against crap sides but don’t acknowledge that lots of bowlers have done it.

Do you think Dale Steyn is the best modern fast bowler because he took 20 wickets at 9 in two tests against a rank New Zealand side? No. All that did was show how much better he was than their rubbish batsmen. His genius was demonstrated by his performances in Asia and in the Boxing Day test etc

 

[DaRick]

Of course, he was the best spinner of all time there will be good players he makes look average. A team who conspired to draw consecutive tests against Zimbabwe (one was rain effected but they still managed to get bowled out for 160 in the first innings) is not a good team being made look average.

Absolutely, no-one would call the 1990's ENG side 'good'. It was just that prime Warne made them look even worse.

Also, I absolutely agree that no-one should dismiss Murali outright - or Steyn for that matter - because they feasted on ZIM/BAN sides that shouldn't have even been playing Test cricket in the first place. They are both legends of the game, as was Warne.

My only contention was that 1990's ENG doesn't deserve to be placed among ZIM post-2003/04 or BAN when Murali was playing - which in fairness, you have accepted.

Truth be told, I don't think we really disagree on anything.

 

[Marcel Proust]

 

[Pippen94]

Kyle Jamieson after 9

284​

35.50​

3/40​

52​

15.06​

 

[Marcel Proust]

Kyle Jamieson after 9

284​

35.50​

3/40​

52​

15.06​

Grandpa Jamieson

 

[Agent93]

Kyle Jamieson after 9

Not bad for a bowler, who hasn't scored over 30 in a year.