What appears clear from the campaign is that the vote to Leave was as much a statement about the country's national identity, and all that involves, as it was about its economic and political future.
"Cricket is an art. Like all arts it has a technical foundation. To enjoy it does not require technical knowledge, but analysis that is not technically based is mere impressionism."
- C.L.R. James
Last edited by ankitj; 27-06-2013 at 10:09 AM.
I'm a bigger fan of Clyde Walcott (and the Three Ws generally) than most, but is everyone who is picking Walcott as the 'keeper in their All Time 2nd and 3rd XIs aware that he only kept wicket in 15 of his 44 Tests, and that his batting average while keeping was just 40?
I don't mean to be trying to influence any voting here, and it doesn't bother me who gets picked in these teams (as long as Keith Miller does, bitches), but the Walcott selections are baffling me somewhat.
I was about to pick Dhoni but then settled for Walcott.
marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
I know what you mean, but he was stunningly good, and comfortably the best I ever saw
Every time I have to watch my two sons (24 and 22) go off clubbing, with their boundless energy, perfect gym-honed physiques and my money jangling in their pockets the only thing that quells the envy is the thought that at least Iíve seen Barry Richards bat
Been very busy and tally taking longer than anticipated. Only now onto page 2 of the thread. Already some interesting results though. Hope to be finished tonight when I get home after work.
Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
Hadlee ( tough choice Lillee my favorite)
2nd looks stronger
Last edited by doesitmatter; 28-06-2013 at 10:46 AM.
Why did they only make your second XI if they are stronger?
Also, agree re: Barry Richards and Mike Proctor. They are without doubt some of the best Cricketers of all time, but without doubt no where close to the best Test Cricketers of all time in my eye, because anyone can have a good few Tests and I definitely think they are rated very highly on the basis of performing well in those Tests, I'm sure there were other South Africans in that era who have brilliant first class records but either didn't perform terrifically in their few Tests or didn't play at all. I still pick Pollock and Headley, but think a current player would need to play 80+ Tests before they could be considered so 4 is nowhere near enough.
However, if you think about it, the idea that Barry Richards would go OK against Marshall/Ambrose/Hadlee/Murali is about as contentious as the idea that Jack Hobbs would go OK against Lillee/McGrath/Holding/Warne despite the fact that Hobbs played Test cricket for the best part of 20 years and Richards didn't.
In other words, what proof do you have that Marshall/Ambrose/Hadlee/Murali would knock-over Barry Richards, but Lillee/McGrath/Holding/Warne wouldn't clean-up Jack Hobbs?
Last edited by watson; 28-06-2013 at 07:20 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)