Brad McNamara @bbuzzmc
Will say this once and then nothing else. Defamation laws quite clear in Aus.be careful.
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
I think the difference between Proctor and Tayfield is smaller than the difference between Holding and Gibbs though.
RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.
Steyn: Matches = 11 Ave = 27.28 SR = 46.0
S.Pollock: Matches = 13 Ave = 36.85 SR = 80.8
Adcock: Matches = 5 Ave = 29.28 SR = 74.8
P.Pollock: Matches = 14 Ave = 27.65 SR = 57.0
Procter: Matches = 7 Ave = 15.02 SR = 36.9
Actually you're right Satan, Donald's figures aren't flash. But they still significantly better than Shaun Pollock who is rank last.
The surprise package is Peter Pollock. On those numbers he deserves more votes than he is getting!
And we also can draw a reasonable conclusion from those 7 Test matches of Mike Procter. That is, he must have been one hell of a fast bowler.
Last edited by watson; 14-12-2012 at 01:53 AM.
- BenaudFortunately, tonight is a reminder that older people and older players have the opportunity to applaud all the good things done by the modern-day players Ė their ability to play outstanding attacking cricket, their flair and inspiration and innovation; and itís a reminder also, in a quiet way, to the modern-day players that good things have happened before, that in every era there have always been cricketers who have served the game well and have loved it, and wanted to see it flourish
Both Pollock and Procter should make it but I'm trying not to over-think it and just pick who I think are the best two pacers.
I want Procter in the side too, and I will have him ahead of Shaun Pollock as first change.
~ Do you think I care for you so little that betraying me would make a difference ~
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)