Strong lower-orders in test history

[War]

I'm sure watching England lower-order strenght in the just concluded test, many rightfully reckoned that was one fof the more powerful 8-10 possibly in test history.

In my time in watching cricket i can only recall:

- Australia during the glory years having Warne/Lee/Gillespie from 8-10. But i'd rate England's ahead of that.

- S Africa circa 1997-1999 had a #8-10 with the likes Boucher/Kluserner/S Pollock/Symcox interchanging in various tests.

I dont recall too many other strong 8-10s in test history. But this where if anyone esle can, feel free to bring it to attention. Discuss...

 

[sifter132]

The thing with that Aussie trio was that none of them were fantastic individually (all decent, sure), but one of them always seemed to hang around and they were excellent partners for top order players. Each of them had different strengths too, so they really had a 'whole is more than the sum of the parts' thing happening.

Yes those SA teams were fantastic depth wise. One tour they had a bottom 5 of McMillan, Richardson, Pollock, Klusener and Symcox. I think all of those guys have Test 100s. They just couldn't find any non-allrounders to play

I'd nominate Zimbabwe and New Zealand as well. Unfortunately, both teams lower orders were stronger than their top orders for a while . I remember it being mentioned on that Zim tour of Australia about 10 years ago that Zimbabwe had first class centurions from 1-11. Ray Price was the #11, and Heath Streak, Sean Ervine and Andy Blignaut were the 8-10 (yes, I had to look that order up...)

New Zealand have recently had Vettori, McCullum, Mills and Oram down low(ish), but they were strong even in the 80s when Hadlee, Ian Smith and John Bracewell would bat at either 7-9 or 8-10.

 

[aussie1st]

It's hard to find one which matches their batting talent with their bowling and that is what the English one does. Australia is the closest in that department but their batting isn't near the standard of the current English lower order. Zimbabwe one is good but due to the lack of cricket it's hard to compare.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I've already said on the england v india forum that it is the strongest lower order but in some ways it is and it isn't.

it's worth throwing prior in there as part of it. from 7 down you are picking players on their ability to do something other than bat, and Prior would get in most teams on his batting alone.

Gilchrist was explosive and a brilliant batsman but I don't think he's as complete as Prior is, a player like gilchrist wouldn't have played on batting alone, he was too much of a live wire. Prior isn't perfect but he can attack, defend, play patiently and on a variety of conditions, everything you'd expect any of your top 6 to do.

add to that bresnan, broad and swann. I think that australian trio were good, but they owe that as much to being in a strong squad and experience and training. Those three english guys are just naturally pretty good batsmen, they'll only get better over the years and they're pulling england from the brink with regularity.

However. SA side of the 70s that had Lance and Proctor in it's 7-10 so that must be in with a shout.

 

[Biggy]

Australia's tail used to always be reliable. England at the moment though are top, considering their consistency.

 

[CG123]

In this test we had McCullum batting at eight, with Vettori, Franklin, and Wiseman below him. Their FC averages now read; 36, 35, 30, and 21. We had Oram and Franklin opening the bowling there though...

 

[Aoun13]

I will rate South African lower order of Boucher/Kluserner/S Pollock/Symcox to be the strongest of all time but this English lower order specially Prior/Broad/Bresnan/Swan is not much away from that.

 

[Owzat]

Think it's a bit of an over-reaction to form, and a bit knee-jerk because Tremlett was in the side only one Test ago and that isn't the same as Bresnan (8 Tests) being in it all the time - and that was only the second time Bresnan has scored more than 35 in a Test match. Plus his 90 came after England had built a strong position of 339/6 which was 272 runs in front already.

South Africa of the mid 90s springs to mind, Richardson might not have been the world's best batsman keeper but with McMillan, Matthews and De Villiers down the order that was a strong line up - even Donald could score a few runs so it was deeper rather than stronger than an England side of Prior, Broad, Swann, Tremlett, Anderson which is the usual XI (Tremlett the least 'fixed' of them)

1994 series in England

McMillan : 1968 runs @ 39.36
Richardson : 1359 runs @ 24.27
Matthews : 348 runs @ 18.32 (HS 62no)
De Villiers : 359 runs @ 18.89 (HS 67no)
Donald : 652 runs @ 10.69 (HS 37)


HS indicated where they didn't have a Test ton to their name. They also had the likes of Symcox (741 runs @ 28.50) in their reserves for when they decided spin wasn't "just a handy setting on a washing machine" to quote Wisden from 1988 suggesting that was Viv Richards' view on spin

 

[Fenil]

Current England side has a very strong lower order in Prior, Broad, Bresnan, and Swann.

I think New Zealand is one team that has always had some good lower order batsmen. Currently too, they have a good lower order with players like Vettori, Mills and Southee.

 

[puddleduck]

Gilchrist was explosive and a brilliant batsman but I don't think he's as complete as Prior is, a player like gilchrist wouldn't have played on batting alone, he was too much of a live wire.

Woah. I know this was posted a while ago, but I'm not sure how no one flagged it! A man who averaged 47 through his test career, and the right side of 50 until his last couple of years. A man who whenever Australia were 200-5 would come in and change the game so that two sessions later they were not just rescued but on top. A man who opened the batting in ODI cricket with an average of 35 and a destructive strike rate. Also a batsman who played proper cricket shots and rarely slogged to score quicky.

There is a reason he is the greatest wicket-keeper batsman of all time. Prior needs at least another 3-5 years of consistent run scoring to be considered on the same page!

When Prior has an away series, against a bowling attack on a par with the 2002 SA attack and scores 473 runs of 474 balls at an average of 157 then perhaps I will consider him a better batsman than Gilchrist...

 

[sifter132]

Hmm have to agree with that sentiment. Also...keeping ability. Prior's good now, but he's had to do a lot of work to get to that standard and go back a couple of years and you'll note many an England fan complaining about it and pimping for James Foster. Gilchrist was always good with the gloves on up until his last year or 2.

 

[puddleduck]

Hmm have to agree with that sentiment. Also...keeping ability. Prior's good now, but he's had to do a lot of work to get to that standard and go back a couple of years and you'll note many an England fan complaining about it and pimping for James Foster. Gilchrist was always good with the gloves on up until his last year or 2.

Quite

Also just realised the dates were clearly set by someone who's ancestors were forced to leave England many decades ago and as such are the wrong way around Thus this was actually posted a couple of days ago, not in March. Which makes me more flabbergasted no one felt the urge to correct the initial claim. I think I actually stopped and did a double take. Especially since as you can tell by my activity in the last day, I'm not one to just post an opinion because I feel like it...

 

[akshay12]

well for those who are saying that prior is better than gilchrist,they should know that prior is not even a regular in ODI and T20 lineup.and i would rate Brendon McCullum far above than Prior.also Haddin is also a decent no.7.

 

[Aoun13]

well for those who are saying that prior is better than gilchrist,they should know that prior is not even a regular in ODI and T20 lineup.and i would rate Brendon McCullum far above than Prior.also Haddin is also a decent no.7.

Here everyone is talking about Test, so considereing ODI and T20 is useless. Brendon is a very fine Keepr/batsman but Prior is making his habit of coming lower the order when England usually can either fall from thier or can get edge on the other team and he usually provide England an edge just same as Gilchrist usually do. I will not rate him ahead of great Gilchrist becuase he has done this for more then 5 years in a row for Australia while for Prior its just a start.