Judging from the reaction to Grant Elliott's magnificent 115 from the unlikely number 4 slot in Sydney, it is seemingly the latest vindication of the cricketing world's notion that the kiwis "play above themselves in these Trans-Tasman contests". Elliott was seen by many, including this writer, as a limited cricketer. But his knock can be put into context when you consider NZ's alleged bits-and-pieces cricketers have traditionally been way better than perception suggests.
A typical introduction might read, "He bowls 'gentle medium' paced swingers and bats 'usefully' in the middle order". A more cynical observer might prefer 'non-rounder'. With that kind of profile, it just had to be that Grant Elliott should migrate to New Zealand having grown up (and played first class cricket)in South Africa. A disastrous test debut against England last year endeared him to no one, but following his 196 for Wellington later in the State Championship, he insisted batting was his strong suit and and pleaded to be taken more seriously. His next test outing against Australia was no better, but before that he had established his one-day credentials with crucial contributions on the England tour. When he was given the number five slot for the start of this series, I was seriously worried. He played really well in Melbourne, but number four in Sydney? Surely it would be a bridge too far. He was at the crease between the fifth and forty-fifth innings, and always seemed on top of the situation. He initially took his time to rebuild the innings, but switched gears effortlessly when the required run-rate mounted and the second batting powerplay was taken.
On this post at Cricket with Balls jrod remarks, "He looks, smells, and tastes like a bits and pieces all rounder." Granted, at the crease he looks ungainly at times and his batting is largely based on knocking the ball along the ground and awkward chip shots just over the infield. But ever since the departure of Roger Twose in 2001, the NZ one-day side has been crying out for exactly that kind of player - someone who can get the score moving along with minimum fuss, taking the pressure off his big-hitting but frequently stifled batting partners.
Elliott's 115 could well be remembered as one of those classic century in a losing cause efforts that have been singular moments in the sun for many kiwi cricketers. I am particularly reminded of Chris Harris' 130 in that WC quarterfinal game of 1996. The context was similar; it was in a losing cause against the Aussies, and prior to that innings Harris had only been taken seriously as a fielder. The then coach Glenn Turner and skipper Lee Germon felt Harris had more potential up the order, and unlike Elliott's innings he attacked from the word go, taking advantage of fielding restrictions and putting McGrath and Warne to the sword. It changed his career, at least in limited overs. For a short while he took assumed a Michael Bevan finisher-type role, before he was consigned to the lower order once again.
Elliott, while presumably in the team as a Chris Harris-prototype, could go one step better and looks good value at number five. It's tempting to speculate on his renewed prospects as a test player, but for now he appeals as the player who completes the jigsaw as far as the one-day side is concerned, especially when the bigger names return from injury.
Top Cricket From The Second Tier
13 years ago
3 comments:
This leads me to believe that the Kiwis have a set of overrated players. Overrated precisely because they are always talked about as being underrated. So now your new blog post makes Grant Elliot a highly overrated underrated player... get my drift?
This is in contrast, of course, to the truly consistently underrated players of the past like Larsen, Parore, Bracewell and Chatfield. Oram, I think would qualify in the present as truly underrated.
Interesting point Anand, though I don't agree. This is the blog of a kiwi fan, so I might go overboard with my descriptions sometimes. But elsewhere, descriptions of the kiwi side are mostly cliched (certainly not overrated); when they say underrated, it's pretty much a euphemism for "boring crap side which gives me little else to talk about".
The players you mentioned were perhaps underrated, but how many observers actually recall Chatfield and Bracewell. Those guys were subject to the same treatment by writers back in the day...it was fashionable to call them underrated, others felt that this itself made them overrated. Similarly, this generation of (neutral) observers will forget the Elliotts and Orams, simply because they were not significant enough in the larger scheme of things. That's something I've come to accept/
Just thought it was amusing that one of this week's questions on CNNSI's mailbag was this:
Adding to the overused anecdotes list -- did you know the most underrated part of Federer's game is his serve? I think calling something 'underrated' eventually turns it into the opposite.
-- Alex Walker, Conyers, Ga.
Post a Comment