centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
wtfWhy Laker? Why not Murali?
wtfWhy Laker? Why not Murali?
Nah you've got the heaven team wrong.
I refer you to Carlisle (1987) who suggested "they say in heaven love comes first."
So I give you, the opener of the Heaven 11, Martin Love:
Ooooooh, heaven is a place on earth.
It's a good question, king... a good question. Something got to do with Murali being seen rolling a joint in Bangalore last night, maybe.Why Laker? Why not Murali?
Murali isn't dead, mate.I was referring to the original post
He meant: Why Laker? Why Warne, and not Murali?Murali isn't dead, mate.
Nah I doubt it. He just misunderstood the thread premise. There's no way he'd come in here and be shocked at someone rating Warne ahead of Murali.He meant: Why Laker? Why Warne, and not Murali?
he oughta do something about it if he's so madMurali isn't dead, mate.
I'm rapidly shifting to this school of thought too... They both did brilliantly regardless of the pitch or conditions. Would be an absolute nightmare for the opposition in the second innings. Two quicks + Murali,Warne + One All rounder would be an absolutely deadly combination.If you have Warne and Murali available you pick both.
!!Heaven XI
1. Hobbs
2. Hutton
3. Bradman
4. Headley
5. Hammond
6. Walcott
7. Miller
8. Lindwall
9. Marshall
10. Barnes
11. O'Reilly
I considered Worrell for Miller myself actually but eventually settled on Miller because of the question marks over what type of bowler Barnes was. Wanted three genuine pace bowlers if I could manage it and I sure as hell wasn't leaving Barnes or O'Reilly out.Would have loved to find a place for Worrell in there.
Brilliant combo. I struggle with Walcott being keeper though. Replace him with Ames and lose very little.Heaven XI
1. Hobbs
2. Hutton
3. Bradman
4. Headley
5. Hammond
6. Ames
7. Miller
8. Lindwall
9. Marshall
10. Barnes
11. O'Reilly