Last edited by watson; 26-01-2013 at 04:31 PM.
Trying to decide how Graeme Pollock's run scoring would differ as a result of facing Sydney Barnes at the MCG in 1909, while at the same time trying to figure out how Jack Hobbs would go against Shane Warne and Dale Steyn in 2013, all while trying to figure out if Sachin Tendulkar would play Bill O'Reiley like he did Warne is too much for me!
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"People make me happy.. not places.. people"
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson
"Oh my God, there's a castle! A castle!"
As for Pollock V Barnes, we would have to find out in the literature whether Pollock was any good against drift/swing plus leg-breaks. I assume though that being a left-hander would help Pollock greatly. Ergo, Pollock to make 75 runs before lunch, and before being bowled 'thru the gate', at the MCG, 1909. No rain.
Last edited by watson; 26-01-2013 at 04:48 PM.
Anyway, only using performance as measured against peers as a measure of 'all time greatness' is deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply flawed.
For this reason, in my opinion, Grace should not and can not be considered an all time great player, although his impact on the game of cricket has no doubt probably been greater than anyone else.
Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universeCome and Paint Turtle
However, pre-Hobbs, cricket seems a vastly different game, (including statistically).
Does anyone understand the footwork back then?
However, this 'fact' does NOT diminish his greatness one iota. WG Grace is/was a cricketing great.
Last edited by watson; 26-01-2013 at 05:01 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)