• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Test Top 5s (as of now)

harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Philander really the better all rounder when compared to Morris. Little doubt right now imo. Outbatted him yesterday and much better bowler.
 
Black_Warrior

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
Hey Harsh,

Morris grabbed 3 wickets and before you say it was near the end of the innings, that's where England's batting starts :ph34r:
 
Black_Warrior

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
mr_mister said:
No centuries in England is a misleading stat. Got 5 fifties last ashes, 4 of them above 75


Wasn't going big but he was scoring plenty of runs
Click to expand...

TheJediBrah said:
Yeah it's a very specific metric to judge someone on. Would it be better if he'd made a couple of 100s but averaged 10 runs lower? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
mr_mister said:
That 100s column does mean an awful lot to most cricket pundits
Click to expand...
Not just cricket pundits but that's how batting has been judged pretty much for all of known history. Batsmen go and want to get hundreds. Teams want their top order batsmen to get big hundreds. When a batsman is out of form and his place is questioned, a 100 is what shuts down that conversation, not a 60. Right now in the South Africa-England thread, people are frustrated by Root getting 78 instead of a 100. Sure you can question that wisdom but to do it now when Warner doesn't have hundreds in England sounds a bit weird... If he actually got hundreds in England, even a 101, Warner fans would be the first to remind everyone about it.
 
Last edited:
Pratters

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
He probably batted after Philander as he has just come into the side. Over all, Morris is the better batsman between the two.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Black_Warrior said:
Not just cricket pundits but that's how batting has been judged pretty much for all of known history. Batsmen go and want to get hundreds. Teams want their top order batsmen to get big hundreds. When a batsman is out of form and his place is questioned, a 100 is what shuts down that conversation, not a 60. Right now in the South Africa-England thread, people are frustrated by Root getting 78 instead of a 100. Sure you can question that wisdom but to do it now when Warner doesn't have hundreds in England sounds a bit weird... If he actually got hundreds in England, even a 101, Warner fans would be the first to remind everyone about it.
Click to expand...

People often "say" 100s but I think what most pundits and commentators mean is big scores that can you put your team in the drivers' seat. On a road, even a 100 may not be enough. Its just about getting a big enough score in the context of the game and the conditions that helps put your side in control, and not wasting your good form. And TBF, Root does seem to "waste" his form a lot. That said, I read in the tour thread someone mentioned KW and Root being a bit "loose" as against The Chump who seems to bat really big once he is in. But at least from his innings in India, I got the feeling that he does get away with his poor strokes a lot more than Root and KW though. Whether it is something inherent about their techniques, or just good luck, I dont know. Sometimes the game boils down to just a few inches or mm, Smith misses his airy fairy drives, Root nicks 'em and one of them is the best in the world, the other struggles to even be in the conversation.
 
Pratters

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Smith is way better than Root and Williamson. He is on the way to become one of the greatest batsmen of all time along with the likes of Bradman, Sobers etc. He is certainly the best batsman I have seen in my time watching cricket ahead of even Lara. I love watching Root and he is great too but Smith is another level.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Let him complete more than 5 years as a regular international batsman first. Then we can rate him. I agree he is the best of the current lot.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Saha easily the better keeper, perhaps the best in the SC I would say. I have to quantify that as Sarfraz does not usually get as many challenging wickets to show his keeping chops off as the keepers from India, SL and BD do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top