Originally Posted by bagapath
well, with only 9 wickets he would not be able to meet any statistical cut off point. i guess he would never be part of the poll. intend to start the first poll tomorrow evening. will wait for any further opinions/tips on how this can be run.
Of course if one was to consider WG one cant look at Test matches. He played so few, so late and at a time when they were not even considered as important as a game between Yorkshire and Surrey or Gentlemen versus Players.
WG has to be evaluated on the basis of his first class career.
By the way, someone mentioned that WG played a completely different game. Sorry mate, you have got it all wrong. If I send you action pictures of WG batting you will be stunned to see the strokes... and he also slog swept and did it often to balls outside the off stump in defiance to what was considered 'propah' in those days.
That guy could bat.
I read somewhere that we would look at WG differently if only he didn't have that beard. It somehow is in total contrast to our stereo type of an athlete. Add to that his increasing girth over his career and the modern fan finds him as an amusing caricature of a cricketer but wont always say it since it may be considered blasphemous by some.