I did miss Lindwall, Davidson would be in the third tier for me.Donald > Lillee and McGrath.
Just putting it out there, y'know.
Two you're certainly missing - as so many so often do - are Ray Lindwall and Alan Davidson.
"little".I'd love to see Richard tell the likes of Benaud and other cricketing scholars his little theories and opinions. Would be fun to see their reactions.
Indeed Imran was more disciplined than Wasim ,the reason being he wasn't a natural like Wasim .He earned his ability through graft and determination .He started as a mediocre medium pacer in 1971 ,realised himself and then decided to work hard on his physique ,learned his tricks while playing for Oxford universities ,came back as one of the greatest quicks of all time . U have to give full marks to him for that .It's fairly subjective, to be honest. In general, it appears that those who prefer consistency, a testing line/length and calculated bowling seem to prefer Imran; Wasim bowled some utter tosh at times, and I never really got the feeling that he tried to out-think the batsman - (and indeed, this impression was facilitated by his own account) - instead, he focused on variety and the extra touch of genius - I can't think of anybody else who bowled an equal number of virtually unplayable deliveries, apart, perhaps, from Murali.
You've been warned in the past, and via email to cut this sort of thing out of your posting.I'd love to see Richard tell the likes of Benaud and other cricketing scholars his little theories and opinions. Would be fun to see their reactions.
What ??You've been warned in the past, and via email to cut this sort of thing out of your posting.
Anymore of it, and you'll find yourself banned.
I am sorry James but its important for the credibility of CW that not only are you fair and above prejudice but, even more importantly, perceived to be so by most people. I am afraid this doesn't seem to be one such case which is very disappointing. Unless there is more to your post than just what you have quoted. In which case it needs clarification rather than this lingering doubt as I have now.You've been warned in the past, and via email to cut this sort of thing out of your posting.
Anymore of it, and you'll find yourself banned.
Nope.Do I need to tell that who do I think was better bowler?
? WhatYou've been warned in the past, and via email to cut this sort of thing out of your posting.
Anymore of it, and you'll find yourself banned.
Fair enough. In that case, I think it would have been more appropriate for James not to have quoted the postThere is more to it, as James alluded to. We have been in contact with members in an effort to reduce the sniping and negative atmosphere that has been getting quite a bit out of hand lately. Whilst quoting the post in isolation may look objectionable to you, taken in a wider context it makes perfect sense.