Just to use 1 one example C_C was reason i started rating Tendy over Lara as a test batsman. With the current era of CWers, i expect just dull debates with nothing really to learn that would change my mind.
Cricket discussion forums used to be so much better back in the day. These modern flat-track bullies wouldn't last 5 pages with the great debaters of the past.
actually i love this team. it looks much much better than cricinfo's second XI. and, but for bradman this is not in any other way inferior to the first xi, either.
Last edited by bagapath; 27-10-2010 at 03:49 AM.
Last edited by Ruckus; 27-10-2010 at 09:35 AM. Reason: Drunken Bull****
but compton, for my money, had everything one needs to belong in this team. he was successful all around the world against various opponents for many many years - an important trait he shares with the great border, waugh and barrington you have mentioned. he played the game hard and with a will to win - unlike the dour barrington but more like waugh and border.
what sets him apart from all of them is that he had all the strokes in the book which he employed without inhibition; and he even added his own invention to the coaching manual - the falling sweep. border and waugh were limited in their stroke production - they preferred effectiveness to flair. barrington chose safety over crowd pleasing. they all could turn matches around with hard work, guts and zen like concentration. compton, OTOH, was the kind of cricketer who could take a game by its ears and shake it up within a session. his mercurial style was good enough to lift the sagging spirits of a war ravaged britain and give them hope to enjoy life, very similar to what bradman's batsmanship did for an australia under economic depression. in an all-time xi we need style, flair and innovation; because substance is a given at this level we are talking about. compton had it all in plenty.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)