I see your Vandort and raise you Younis Khanmarc71178 said:
Scotton?Craig said:For me it is Alec Bannermann who played in the first ever Test along with his brother Charles - who once batted for 3 days to make his highest Test score of 94 - an average of 12 runs an hour
Seriously what goes through their minds?
It's understandable with his stand and deliver approach to batting, hardly great to watch but don't see why it should be brought up in a stonewallers thread, he hardly hangs about when it comes to making his runs.Matt79 said:This may well lead to a ******* of abuse, but I find Trescothick, whilst knowing he's far from a stonewaller, incredibly boring to watch. I watched all of the Ashes last year, and I know he made runs during that series, but I can't remember thinking anything he did was interesting or watchable thing he did with the bat. It's as if my brain rejects him.
I suppose this is more my problem than his
EDIT: hmmm - "t o r r e n t" without spaces triggers the swear filter?
I think he's not a bad selection. I just highlighted this sentence because I think he was very good technically in defense (and also off the back foot). But he was rather limited, and not the worst choice at all.C_C said:Wasnt very sound technically and one of the few batsmen i've watched ( thouh limitedly) who had just a few scoring shots but an excellent defense.
Son Of Coco said:I vote for the Romans...
AB is a good choice for me, too. Although I disagree he wasn't technically good; I thought he had an excellent technique in defence, had the best pull/hook shot I've personally ever seen (to this day; yes, better than Ponting in my opinion) and could slog too. I've seen AB hit massive 6's.I think he's not a bad selection. I just highlighted this sentence because I think he was very good technically in defense (and also off the back foot). But he was rather limited, and not the worst choice at all.