Hey Kohli, piss off!
Hey Kohli, piss off!
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
I don't understand why his suit is not wet though?
Needs more water.
Imran isn't replaceable by Miller. Miller was a better batsman but Imran the better bowler.
And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW
Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta
Bowlers win matches, batsmen set them up is a rubbish statement. It only applies to the team batting first (another Chappellism: always bat first). The statement just smacks of analysis for the sake of analysis.
If you're batting in the fourth innings you can bet your bottom dollar your batsmen are the ones who will be winning the match, especially if you're chasing a decent score.
Proudly supporting Central Districts
The Culture of Mediocrity is forever, and is proudly brought to you by New Zealand Cricket in association with Grant Bradburn Sports and the Unholy Alliance
RIP Craig Walsh
Okay, what about Hadlee, as good a bowler as Imran, and decent bat. Plus, we have had this conversation before, but Imran was never a good batsman and a great bowler at the same time. So, even if you wanted to, you couldn't take both sides of him.
Against India 1982-83
Against England 1981-82
Against WI 1987-88
Against England 1986-87
Plus there were other series where he was awesome with the ball but didn't get much chances to cash in since the batsmen just ran away with the batting otherwise Imran would have probably scored loads of runs (Australia in Pakistan 1982-83, Sri Lanka vs Pakistan 1981-82)
And lets say you're half right just as an exercise: Doesn't that make batsmen who win matches during an innings where the bowlers are expected to win the match even more proportionally matchwinning?
When the chasing target is 200 or over, if the bowlers are just expected to turn up in the fourth innings and win the match with only the risk of the draw to thwart them, doesn't that make them less matchwinners and more doing what is par of the course? And in that situation, if the batsmen do chase the total, how are they not matchwinners when in Chappell land the bowlers were expected to roll them over or hold them to a draw?
So even if the statement is right, it's still wrong.
Imran has just one instance of a 5-fer and century in the same match, compared to Botham's 5. He doesn't have 250 runs and 20 wickets in the same series (Came very close in the 82-83 India series, which was his best no doubt, brilliant performance, especially with the ball, also with the bat) (But as another aside, that series did have 6 tests, which is a rarity).
Last edited by harsh.ag; 27-03-2013 at 01:56 AM.
Its got to be the Don. If you had to pick an all time side, and he was available, he would be your first pick. Not to mention nobody, in the 70 years before and after his test career has come close to his records.
52 matches, 80 innings
29 centuries (better than 1 in every 2 matches)
12 double centuries
2 triple centuries
People have beaten his run total, but of those, Hammond has played the least matches, at 85. Just 10 batsmen have scored more centuries than him, but every single one has played more than 100 matches. He still holds the joint record for triple centuries. He made his hundred 29 times, and 41% of the time, he'd go on to make another hundred. He is the only man to score more than 300 runs in a day. He was the fastest to 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000 runs, and the 3rd fastest to 1000. In a game where 50 is considered a great average, he almost averaged 100. In fact, only 3 batsmen who have played more than 20 innings have averaged over 60, and none of them managed to average over 61.
The fact that he dominated everyone before and after him, and by such a huge margin easily makes him the greatest batsman to ever play the game. Because of this dominance, I believe he is the best player to play the game. He was also an excellent fielder. Of course, there are those who would say that the best player must be an allrounder. I don't think we've had a truly great all rounder in the game. someone who bats like Sobers, and bowls like Imran. Maybe we never will. That man, may give Bradman a run for the top position.
But seriously, if you were choosing an all time team, and you had first pick, would you not choose Bradman first, knowing that meant another team would have him on their roster?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)