Neil Wagner isn’t perfect

Posted by
< 1 minute read

There aren’t many media outlets where this would be headline news. It is here though. New Zealand’s fourth seamer isn’t flawless. Stop the press!

It may only have been the day before yesterday, but it already seems a long, long time since we suggested that Neil Wagner never lets you down. The ‘never’ was always an exaggeration; rhetoric, if you will. Now it’s hollow, empty rhetoric that doesn’t really seem to make much sense. The Wagnermeister, as no-one calls him, took 0-49 off seven overs on the first day of the second Test against Sri Lanka. That, ladies and gentlemen, is gash.

So not content with merely failing to back up our claims, it seems Wagner went out of his way to actively disprove them. He didn’t even manage to run in all day. Brendon McCullum didn’t let him, what with all the runs he was conceding.


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


    1. Also ‘Enlarge Win’, a Sri Lankan cause he’s aided generously thus far.

      After this reverse-ferret, I’m looking forward to Neil Wagner destroying Sri Lanka in the second innings with 8-37, to go with his maiden test double century tomorrow.

  1. My point about Wagner that I think I failed in making is that players who are talked about as ‘reliable’ are often described as such as a euphemism.

    There seems to be a feeling that people who get 3-75 on a good day are more likely to have good days more often, as though all players just sort of even out eventually. I think it’s to do with the reasons people think batsmen are ‘due’ as well. Gambler’s fallacy or some such.

    But Wagner averages 35 because his good days are both limited and not actually very frequent. Some players are, or at least have been, a bit meh.

    1. We know what you mean. Although 35 ain’t so bad in this day and age. It’s probably slightly better than you expect from a bowler like Neil Wagner, which is perhaps the point we were trying to make.

      Quite why we felt it necessary to make that point is another matter entirely.

Comments are closed.