Last edited by harsh.ag; 23-04-2013 at 11:01 PM.
You don't allow Bradman to average 100. He averages 100 because nobody can control his scoring - Coronis at his eloquent best
Draft Side: Hobbs | Hutton | Don | Pollock | Ponting |ABDV | Miller | Davidson | Warne | Garner | Waqar
Can swing or take away a game in a session at home or away. Rate him very highly indeed.
Hutton* | Hobbs | Bradman | Richards^ | Tendulkar | Sobers5^ | Gilchrist+ | Khan3 | Marshall1 | Warne4^ | McGrath2
Sutcliffe | Gavaskar* | Headley | Chappell^ | Lara^ | Kallis5^ | Knott+ | Hadlee3 | Ambrose2 | Lillee1 | Muralitharan4
Greenidge | Richards^ | Ponting^ | Pollock | Hammond^ | Worrell5* | Waite+ | Akram3 | Steyn1 | Holding2 | O'Reilly4
Morris | Simpson^ | Sangakkara | Weekes^ | Border*^ | Walcott+ | Faulkner5 | Laker4 | Trueman1 | Garner3 | Donald2
He's already played more innings which have affected the result of a match, than most players do over their whole careers. Yeah, he can throw his wicket away sometimes, but he makes it up with those genius innings. To average almost 50 despite his aggressive approach is fantastic and he's proved his quality in almost all kinds of conditions everywhere. He's one of the best of this generation
I know everyone loves a crazy rambo type perfomance but the idea of there being "match winners" is really flawed and subjective, even moreso than most tags us ****s give players. There's good players, mediocre players, and **** players imo, the rest is down to whether we enjoy watching them or not.
Exit pursued by a bear
The match is set up in the first two sessions of the match in my opinion. A good start and you have the opposition chasing the game from then on.
Cook the best opener in the world at the moment so probably him.
Ponting, although not an opener, was phenomenal in the first of a series in particular so he would be up there. Hayden dominant also.
Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | PM me for my list of CW posters you shouldn't talk cricket with in Cricket ChatCome and Paint Turtle
Steve Waugh was the man. He averaged almost double in wins than in draws and scored 25 of his 32 tons in wins (which accounted for just over 50% of his games.) Waugh one of the few not to pad stats in draws. I know this is heresy but I'd take Steve Waugh over Lara and Tendulkar for my side though both have probably surpassed him as greats.
Cullinan also underrated regarding winning innings
Last edited by Goughy; 24-04-2013 at 05:30 AM.
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)
Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net
Last edited by Goughy; 24-04-2013 at 05:49 AM.
2) Yeah, my bad... shouldn't have said "attack". I meant Waugh's Australia were arguably the greatest team ever, and had great bowlers AND batsmen who ensured Waugh's brilliant hundreds didn't go to waste. Without a doubt, there have been plenty of cases where either the bowling or batting has not been able to capitalize on Lara/tendulkar hundreds. Far fewer cases for Waugh. Not saying he isn't a match-winner, but he can't be called a bigger match-winner than others simply because he averaged more than them
There used to be someone who posted on here years ago who reckoned that batsman can't be match winners - only bowlers can.
Regardless of what the batsmen do, the bowlers have to take 20 wickets to win a match. So some merrit to that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)