Benaud is bonkers

[Lillian Thomson]

Might be doing the great man a slight disservice, but this was not his finest hour as a commentator.

Bonkers Benaud

 

[sideshowtim]

Hahaha.

To be fair to the great man, back then not as many test matches were played and cricket was still an amateur game. It would be hard to predict the amazing change it has undergone back then...

 

[BoyBrumby]

How could he not have seen rise of WSC, satellite television and a twelve-month cricket season?! Obvious this negates everthing that's gone before: the man's some kind of ****, clearly.

 

[pasag]

 

[Dissector]

Still a pretty silly statement though. After all Bedser had already taken 236 wickets several years before and Statham ended up with 252 wickets. So it wasn't hard to imagine that a second bowler would get 300. Also note that Gibbs the bowler who eventually beat Truman retired in 1976 and was well into his career when Truman got 300.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How could he not have seen rise of WSC, satellite television and a twelve-month cricket season?! Obvious this negates everthing that's gone before: the man's some kind of ****, clearly.

Someone else reached 300 wickets before any of that was even thought about.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Someone else reached 300 wickets before any of that was even thought about.

In that case I'd like the jury to respectfully disregard my client's last statement.

Actually Sir Donald said something similar about no-one matching Jack Hobbs's run tally whilst on the 1930 Ashes tour. It's on my Story of The Ashes DVD.

 

[sideshowtim]

In that case I'd like the jury to respectfully disregard my client's last statement.

Actually Sir Donald said something similar about no-one matching Jack Hobbs's run tally whilst on the 1930 Ashes tour. It's on my Story of The Ashes DVD.

I can't see anybody passing 62k runs either.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I can't see anybody passing 62k runs either.

Test runs, wise acre.

 

[pup11]

Well such a statement is a bit weird coming from such a great reader of the game, but then i guess we all make mistakes.
PS: Can't help but at this statement though.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Haha, nearly as bad as the guy who said 'I don't see the need for any more than 6 computers in the world'.

 

[Goughy]

The voice doesnt seem to fit the footage. Almost like it was just added on top. Im not saying he didnt say it, as he certainly might, but it also could be a little suspect.

Also, Trueman didnt exactly play all the tests possible and feasably could have taken far more wickets. It shouldnt have taken a genius to figure 300+ was more than possible.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The voice doesnt seem to fit the footage. Almost like it was just added on top. Im not saying he didnt say it, as he certainly might, but it also could be a little suspect.

I think the commentary was by Brian Johnston as it happened. I think the Benaud bit would have been said a bit later when they were rounding up the highlights of the day and that's why the two bits of commentary don't quite seem to match.

 

[archie mac]

Was that Neil Hawke batting?

Some from me

No one will ever beat Laker's 19 wickets in a Test match

No one will ever beat 197 FC tons by Jack Hobbs

No one will ever score more than 5000 Runs an average more than Bradman

I know I have gone out on a limb here

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

No-one else will ever get 3,000 first class wickets again, let alone 4,000+ to dethrone Wilfred Rhodes.

 

[Richard]

Was that Neil Hawke batting?

Certainly was.

 

[Richard]

Might be doing the great man a slight disservice, but this was not his finest hour as a commentator.

Bonkers Benaud

My favourite aspect is that Johnston's pronouncement 7 years earlier had been an utterly unremarkable "That's it, 10 wickets to Laker", whereas this time (in a much lesser achievement) it was "THAT'S IT!!!!!!!!!!!! He's out!!! Trueman's got it, 300 Test wickets"

The Benaud comment was indeed a voiceover of a comment made at the end of the day added into that clip - I think specifically for The History Of Cricket (think that's what it's called, it's currently not to hand and I CBA to go look), a composition presented by David Gower which I was given at the age of 14, and a damn good brief-outline it is too.

It's obviously not a well-educated comment, but there's countless hundreds of things that equally wise people have predicted wrongly. No-one, ever, would have told you in 1902 when live cricket was first filmed that cricket would one day be covered on TV in 8 different Test-playing teams, never mind more, never mind beamed to countries not even involved. And many things besides.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

They obviously never learn as the idiot Lloyd shrieked on Sky today when Murali broke the record that "It'll never ever be got anywhere near." He might not be made to look a fool within 10 years like Benaud was but considering that cricket could be played on this planet for around another 500,000,000 years it's still a tad rash.
What a berk.

 

[Jono]

Lol, its like the commentators get caught up in the moment (although Richie evidently didn't since he apparently said it well after Trueman's actual wicket) and make outlandish statements.

 

[Goughy]

The more I think of this Benaud quote the worse it seems to get.

Trueman barely played 50% of the possible number of games during his career. Its possible that he could have taken over 500 wickets if he had been selected more often.

It wasnt as if he played every game and only just made 300.

Very poor piece of commentary work