Rumesh Ratnayake | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo
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
might as well take Zoysa over those 2
Remember that both Ratnayake's played for a minnow team with hardly any bowling support. And on top of that they never had proper training or fitness regime and basically could not bowl to attacking fields due to circumstances. But Rumesh Ratnayake was slingy, pacy and swung it around and when he was in the mood was quite deadly. Ravi was completely different, as he was a tall bowler, high arm action, accurate, bit of seam and swing and supremely fit and bowled long spells. I would take 5 runs out of their averages to have a better idea of them. They have not lasted long as Vaas or had an ATG bowler bowling from the other end for them, but as a person who have seen them, I rate them above or similar to Vaas and there is absolute daylight between them and Zoysa. Additionally Ravi was quite a good batsman too, and Rumesh was a well known user of long handle.
Member of the Sanga fan club. (Ugh! it took me so long to become a real fan of his)
I always have Ponting, Chappell and Miller there, so no Waugh and Border for me.
It's a toss-up between Compton and Pietersen for me again, very close. Depends on the day
If you were that old, and that kind, and the very last of your kind, you couldn't just stand back and watch children cry.
We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
A cricket supporter forever
Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.
Check out this awesome e-fed:
South Africa put on 345 in their second innings. GA Faulkner contributing 123; and we could only reply with 234. This was very disappointing after our fine start. But South Africa had some great bowlers - Faulkner and Vogler were wonderful, while Schwarz with his googlies, and white with his mixture of googlies and leg breaks, were first rate.
I think that at his time Faulkner was the greatest all-round player in the world. He always got runs, and used to bowl right through the innings.
'My Cricket Memories' by Jack Hobbs (1924)
1st Test: South Africa v England at Johannesburg, Jan 1-5, 1910 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN CricinfoFaulkner, White and Vogler all became googlie experts; Faulkner was the best, and was able to make the ball turn to a pretty good extent either way.
'My Cricket Memories' by Jack Hobbs(1924)Faulkner dismissed Hobbs 4 times - twice in 1910 and twice in 1913 when South Africa toured England. A bowler doesn't get to dismiss Jack Hobbs, 'bowl right through an innings', and be described as 'wonderful', and 'really splendid' without being significantly more than just 'ordinary'.Faulkner will go down to history as South Africa's greatest allrounder. He was a really splendid bowler googly bowler, keeping an immaculate length, much faster than Grimmett, and perhaps the best of the googly bowlers, with the exception of Arthur Mailey.
Sir Jack Hobbs. My Life Story (1935)
Faulkner and Kallis should be in any ATG South African XI.
Last edited by watson; 09-09-2013 at 04:05 PM.
Also, Hammond had this to say;
It has often been stated that the South African touring side of 1907 had more good bowlers in it than any touring side from any other country has ever had. Kotze, Schwarz, Vogler, Faulkner, and White were all in the very top class, and there were four others not far behind them. RE Foster, England's captain at that time, placed Vogler as 'the best bowler in the world'; in a single hour, during one Test, he took 9 wickets for 42 runs, the greatest batsman in England 'scratching about like a lot of hens'.
'Cricket My World' by Walter Hammond (1947)
these quotes are excellent
and yeah, for most people an average of 26 in that era might be equivalent to much higher, but when you're playing against the likes of Jack Hobbs I think that negates the impact of the era tbh.
= staminaused to bowl right through the innings
= skillfulwas able to make the ball turn to a pretty good extent either way
= good techniquereally splendid bowler googly bowler
= good techniquekeeping an immaculate length
The above quotes are absolutes, not relative comparisons. If a bowler picks up regular wickets in the Test match arena, and has those three attributes then he is, by definition, a truly good bowler.
Also, Hobbs had no problem judging Faulkner against Grimmett and Mailey (because he faced all three bowlers).If a leg spinner is mentioned in the same sentence as these two great bowlers, then by implication, he must also be great.
much faster than Grimmett, and perhaps the best of the googly bowlers, with the exception of Arthur Mailey.
Last edited by watson; 09-09-2013 at 09:53 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)