What is test class?

[Xuhaib]

I would say a batting or bowling average of 35 should be classified as test class. I know it is relative for different countries for e.g a bat averaging 35 for Aus might loose his test place but for WI he is the 4 th best best batsman in the country.

In general terms what would be your cut-off point for a cricketer to be called test class.

 

[Goughy]

I would say a batting or bowling average of 35 should be classified as test class. I know it is relative for different countries for e.g a bat averaging 35 for Aus might loose his test place but for WI he is the 4 th best best batsman in the country.

In general terms what would be your cut-off point for a cricketer to be called test class.

Purely for modern (ie current cricketers) Id define it as 40+ with the bat and less than 34 with the ball.

10-15 years ago Id have said 35+ and under 30

A 35 average being the 4th best in WI doesnt show much apart from the fact WI are not very good.

 

[Xuhaib]

Purely for modern (ie current cricketers) Id define it as 40+ with the bat and less than 34 with the ball.

10-15 years ago Id have said 35+ and under 30

A 35 average being the 4th best in WI doesnt show much apart from the fact WI are not very good.

So a Gayle is not test class?

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's tempting to have clearly defined barriers such as "player X averages above/below figure Y so he's test class & player Z who doesn't is not" but I think I often prefer the evidence of my own eyes to brute quantitive data.

All of the England top 6 (excluding Fred & including Mick Vaughan) currently average over 40, but could one really say, hand-on-heart, that Bell (say) is of definite test class? he certainly has the ability to be, but his being test class comes with, at least, some caveats for me. Conversly we have Stephen Fleming, who did end up over the 40 mark but if he'd had a ropey final series against us could well have ended below it. Would we then say he wasn't test class?

 

[Goughy]

So a Gayle is not test class?

What makes you think he is?

Sunglasses, bashing the ball and a 300 on the flatest track in history?

 

[Xuhaib]

What makes you think he is?

Sunglasses, bashing the ball and a 300 on the flatest track in history?

Yes he in not consistent but he dosen't seem out of his depth facing test quality bowlers apart from someone like Vaas ofcourse.

 

[Beleg]

test class batsmen during the last 20 years

the waughs
ponting
gilchrist
langer
hayden
clarke
hussey
stuart law
darren lehman
bevan
slater
taylor
jacques

and youi can add a few more names in there

inzy
younis
yousuf
ejaz
saeed
kamal
butt
s. mohammad


and that's about it for pakistan (at a stretch salim malik)

bowlers

fleming
warne
mcgrath
lee
kaspa
mcgill

(mebbe mcdermott as well)

wasim
waqar
shoaib
saqlain
mushtaq
zahid
shabbir
gul
asif

 

[Craig]

What makes you think he is?

Sunglasses, bashing the ball and a 300 on the flatest track in history?

Sorry how is that relevant? Matt Hayden smashed a then WR 376 against Zimbabwe on a very flat wicket against an attack that was lead and carried by Heath Streak. Adam Gilchrist wasn't a VVS Laxman in terms of elegance in his shot selection.

 

[Craig]

test class batsmen during the last 20 years

the waughs
ponting
gilchrist
langer
hayden
clarke
hussey
stuart law
darren lehman
bevan
slater
taylor
jacques

and youi can add a few more names in there

inzy
younis
yousuf
ejaz
saeed
kamal
butt
s. mohammad


and that's about it for pakistan (at a stretch salim malik)

bowlers

fleming
warne
mcgrath
lee
kaspa
mcgill

(mebbe mcdermott as well)

wasim
waqar
shoaib
saqlain
mushtaq
zahid
shabbir
gul
asif

 

[Beleg]

yes both were test class
stuart law got almost no chances
i dunno why you'd even question bevan one of the best players during the last two decades

 

[Migara]

test class batsmen during the last 20 years

the waughs
ponting
gilchrist
langer
hayden
clarke
hussey
stuart law
darren lehman
bevan
slater
taylor
jacques

and youi can add a few more names in there

inzy
younis
yousuf
ejaz
saeed
kamal
butt
s. mohammad


and that's about it for pakistan (at a stretch salim malik)

bowlers

fleming
warne
mcgrath
lee
kaspa
mcgill

(mebbe mcdermott as well)

wasim
waqar
shoaib
saqlain
mushtaq
zahid
shabbir
gul
asif

ONly Pakistanis and Aussies? Which planet is this?

 

[Beleg]

earth

you wanna do whatever team go ahead instead of acting like a baby

 

[Xuhaib]

yes both were test class
stuart law got almost no chances
i dunno why you'd even question bevan one of the best ODI players during the last two decades

Corrected

 

[Beleg]

its my firm believe that you can't have the sort of success bevan had without being a world classabtsman

he didn't get enough chances

 

[Craig]

yes both were test class
stuart law got almost no chances
i dunno why you'd even question bevan one of the best players during the last two decades

That Stuart Law only played one Test is the reason why I questioned his selection. Could he have been Test class has he had more chances when a spot was vacant? Well how long is a piece of string?

As for Michael Bevan, yes he was one of the greatest ODI batsmen ever, one of my favourites, but I don't see how that can make him Test class when he wasn't all that successful in that format compared to his ODI prowess.

 

[Craig]

its my firm believe that you can't have the sort of success bevan had without being a world classabtsman

he didn't get enough chances

He didn't get enough chances because rightly or wrongly he was deemed not good enough and nor did he take what came his way (did not make a 100 in his 18 Tests). Michael Slater was a fine Test batsman, but was rubbish in ODIs. It is possible to be good in one format and crap in the other.

 

[Beleg]

you dont need to necessarily have played a ****load of tests to be test class

and viceversa

he wasn't as successful because he didn't get enough chances. simple as.

 

[Beleg]

He didn't get enough chances because rightly or wrongly he was deemed not good enough and nor did he take what came his way (did not make a 100 in his 18 Tests). Michael Slater was a fine Test batsman, but was rubbish in ODIs. It is possible to be good in one format and crap in the other.

not really has no impact on the actual 'quality' of a batsman's batting


slater was test class through and through so was bevan and law

good enough batsmen

 

[Migara]

That Stuart Law only played one Test is the reason why I questioned his selection. Could he have been Test class has he had more chances when a spot was vacant? Well how long is a piece of string?

As for Michael Bevan, yes he was one of the greatest ODI batsmen ever, one of my favourites, but I don't see how that can make him Test class when he wasn't all that successful in that format compared to his ODI prowess.

Bevan's greatness, I am taking with a pinch of Salt. Unlike great ODI batsmen of the era like SRT, Viv, Abbas, Ponting, Jayasuriya, Inzamam and Gilly, Bevan sucked against short bowling. His ODI career was during the priod where bouncers were called no ball. If short bowling was prevelant in his time in ODIs, especially against Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim and Waqar, I would not think he could have averaged 50.

 

[Craig]

you dont need to necessarily have played a ****load of tests to be test class

and viceversa

he wasn't as successful because he didn't get enough chances. simple as.

But he did not take the chances he got in his 18 Tests. If he did, he would have.