The REAL allrounders Poll

[The Sean]

A good deal of it, indeed.

6 6s was magnificent, but 254 was better still.

Indeed, you could see why Bradman called it the finest innings he ever saw on Australian soil. The absolute tanning he gave DK Lillee that day was astonishing.

 

[The Sean]

You missed the last line "and taking 5-7'

Love it.

 

[The Sean]

Never mind rumour, unless I'm much mistaken that was fact.

Sadly it's never been confirmed, but I've always chosen to believe it as truth.

 

[Richard]

Well it's certainly fact that he and Compton were snapped with her more than a few times...

 

[Richard]

Indeed, you could see why Bradman called it the finest innings he ever saw on Australian soil. The absolute tanning he gave DK Lillee that day was astonishing.

There have been few more satisfactory instances of the "old" batsman caning the "young quickie".

 

[The Sean]

Well it's certainly fact that he and Compton were snapped with her more than a few times...

Oh, there's absolutely no question that she was quite enamoured of him, and that they spent a lot of time together. It's just as far as I know, no affair of "intimate relations" was ever confirmed. It seems a pretty safe bet though, given that she was personally inviting him to dine with her when he was touring!

 

[silentstriker]

To have an average of 18 after 33 matches requires several years of outstanding performance in international cricket. IMO that's enough to be called great.

If it isn't in your opinion, fair enough.

Great is quite different from all time great.

 

[Richard]

Only in the fact that "all time great" is a phrase of pure folly.

Comparing 1970-present day to 1930-1970 is difficult enough, anything before that is utterly stupid.

 

[C_C]

Isn't that a lucky coincidence...

I seriously don't get where you are getting at - I am Indian. Several of my elder generation family members are cricket nutters. They grew up in the days when TVs were not household items ( not until early-mid 80s did TVs of any type become household items in India) and spent time listening to cricket on the radio or going to every match they can afford to. Obviously, I am gonna hear about India's rise and falls way more and way before the rest !
DUH !

 

[C_C]

What's all this nonsense about Brian Close being humiliated? He was 45 years old and spent 90 minutes trying and not always succeed in dodging bouncers from in the main Michael Holding. It was bravery beyond the call of duty and should have stopped by the umpires intervention but he certainly never felt humitiated and his reputation if anything was enhanced by the performance. I've never seen any footage of the India/West Indies match so I can't make comparisons.

In my opinion, he was humiliated because he was simply not good enough to withstand that spell.
Yes, he may've been old, he might've carried injuries or hell, he might've had a family member die the night before. None of those things change the fact that he was, to borrow an oft-used gaming term, 'Newbified, owned, GG-ed' by Holding and it was embarassing to watch a batsman so completely clueless against some excellent hostile bowling.
The match should NOT have been stopped and it carried on fine : There are clips of it available all over the place for *that* spell of Holding - you could see Close being unable to cope with the pace of Holding. When Holding pitched a few bouncers, Close barely got his head out of the way clumsily. When he pitched it short of a length, Close took hits on his chest and arms. You could see that after a few consecutive bouncers, when the umpire warns Holding, Holding promptly pitched one full and the ball crashed into Close's hips. It wasn't a case of 'bouncer-after-bouncer barrage' to Close- he was simply unable to deal with Holding's pace, regardless of where Holding pitched it. Watching that clip was like watching a cat toy with a mouse. Holding was in utter control of Close and any batsman- nomatter at what level- who gets so thoroughly dominated a bowler should feel humiliated.
If that were me with the bat, I'd feel utterly bested and thus, utterly humiliated. This has nothing to do with skin color as some folks ( no surprise!) would think. Its humiliating when someone gives you such a thorough demonstration that you are not good enough and don't belong at that stage. It'd be like me challenging Federer and getting owned 6-0 6-0 6-0. This is test cricket, not a friendly match at the park or net practice.
Sorry, I am not changing my position on this.

 

[Richard]

I seriously don't get where you are getting at - I am Indian.

Funny how you're Indian when it suits you and Canadian when it suits you...

Several of my elder generation family members are cricket nutters. They grew up in the days when TVs were not household items ( not until early-mid 80s did TVs of any type become household items in India) and spent time listening to cricket on the radio or going to every match they can afford to.

Err, what makes you think I didn't know about Indian TV-set state? It was the same here in Britain until 1953.

Obviously, I am gonna hear about India's rise and falls way more and way before the rest !

Not neccessarily, you might hear about some of the most famous moments in cricket beforehand.

As I, for example, did about many cases before I looked-up some more in-depth England-related stuff.

 

[C_C]

Funny how you're Indian when it suits you and Canadian when it suits you..

So ?
I am an Indian by birth and culture, living in Canada over the last 7 years and a Citizen here.
Obviously I am both Canadian and Indian at the same time !!
If you bother talking to first generation immigrants from ANYWHERE in the world, you'll find that they identify with their adopted nation as well as their nation of origin.

Not neccessarily, you might hear about some of the most famous moments in cricket beforehand.

I never said it is a rule of thumb, is it ? You can be quite rectum-retentive sometimes. Is it that 'inconceivable' to understand that an Indian guy growing up in an Indian household is more likely to hear India's Sabina Park debacle - where the entire flipping batting eleven surrendered- than one solitary foreign batsman getting utterly humiliated ?!?!?


As I said, do not project your prejudices on to me. I've already explained why i see Close as being utterly humiliated that spell and i've also said that i don't distinguish between Close's humiliation and Indian batting team's (as a whole) humiliation in any way whatsoever ! You are exposing your prejudices by trying to find a racial angle into this.

 

[Richard]

So ?
I am an Indian by birth and culture, living in Canada over the last 7 years and a Citizen here.
Obviously I am both Canadian and Indian at the same time !!
If you bother talking to first generation immigrants from ANYWHERE in the world, you'll find that they identify with their adopted nation as well as their nation of origin.

I don't need to talk individually to any (though I have) to realise that.

You've essentially denied your Indian-ness in favour of Canadian-ness in the past, to make it more convenient for a non-Indian prejudice.

I never said it is a rule of thumb, is it ? You can be quite rectum-retentive sometimes. Is it that 'inconceivable' to understand that an Indian guy growing up in an Indian household is more likely to hear India's Sabina Park debacle - where the entire flipping batting eleven surrendered- than one solitary foreign batsman getting utterly humiliated ?!?!?

I personally heard about quite a number of things that happened to one (or two - as was actually the case in this case) foreign batsmen quite a while before I heard one hell of a lot of things to do with "an entire flipping batting eleven".

Maybe I'm "projecting my prejudices onto you" there...

As I said, do not project your prejudices on to me. I've already explained why i see Close as being utterly humiliated that spell and i've also said that i don't distinguish between Close's humiliation and Indian batting team's (as a whole) humiliation in any way whatsoever ! You are exposing your prejudices by trying to find a racial angle into this.

There are many things to which I can find a racial angle in your utterings. This is one. You, clearly, would prefer me to be exposing my own prejudices. I have indeed met many who purvey the same attitudes as you appear to me to do, and it has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with me. I have grown-up in a country and society that has completely moved-on from the impunities of the (sometimes non too distant) past.

 

[C_C]

You've essentially denied your Indian-ness in favour of Canadian-ness in the past, to make it more convenient for a non-Indian prejudice.

Well DUH !
Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that most 1st gen. immigrants are not typical 'natives' of either land - the land of their origin or adoption but somewhere in between ?
Do you really think that a 1st Gen. Chinese immigrant who comes over to America in his/her teens think like typical Americans or typical Chinese poeple ?!?

I personally heard about quite a number of things that happened to one (or two - as was actually the case in this case) foreign batsmen quite a while before I heard one hell of a lot of things to do with "an entire flipping batting eleven".

You were born in a far more affluent and priviledged position than i was then. We didn't have a TV in our house till i was 5 years old.
When your folks rely on the radio,you tend to hear the matches involving your team a lot more often !
Your experience does not encapsulate mine so perhaps you should try to see the world from outside of the prism of your experiences.

I have grown-up in a country and society that has completely moved-on from the impunities of the (sometimes non too distant) past.

You are, sadly mistaken and i understand your perspective now.
If you think your country has completely moved on, try talking to immigrants in your country and you will find that your country still has a very long way to go for it to've 'completely moved on from the impunities of the past'.
How laughably naive of you to assume that institutions and ways of thinking that've dominated your country for hundreds of years will just vanish inside of a generation or two.
I've lived in your country and i didn't mind it. But i can categorically say that your 'completely moved-on' spiel is just fanciful thinking from your part.

I have indeed met many who purvey the same attitudes as you appear to me to do, and it has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with me.

Right !
How you perceive a person has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Is your first name Jesus and last name Christ ?!?

Maybe what you mistake for racism is conflict of viewpoints from my part and your's : You are the typical westerner who sees western civilization as the pinnacle of human civilization while i see it as something that has a long way to go to match some non-western civilizations and its a very young civilization. I don't see it as an inferior one- but merely in the sense of what a child would compare to with the parent in terms of western civilization vs some non western civilization comparisons.
You perceive this as racism from my part, as i said, because the problem lies solely with you and the cultural background you've grown up in. And you are not alone in that.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't see it as an inferior one- but merely in the sense of what a child would compare to with the parent in terms of western civilization vs some non western civilization comparisons.

Completely OT, but thats just BS.

 

[C_C]

Completely OT, but thats just BS.

You might think so- history proves otherwise.
West is what it is because it learnt most things from the east and came up with guns.
Simple as.
And you don't need to be a history major to realize that. But i don't expect your type to understand or acknowledge that. The Greeks were what they were because Egypt taught Greece when Greece was an infant- Plato acknowledges this. Rome and Greece imported from assyrian, egyptian, iranian etc. religion, philosophy and most importantly, scientific logic and mathematics. During that time, much of what we know as Europe (outside of mediterranean regions) was barbarian- ie, no law and order, no civilization. And when Rome died, Europe sank even deeper. It was the Arab knowledge ( the Europeans re-learnt Aristotle and Plato through arabic translations because they never bothered with it) that rescued Europe along with sciences comming from the far more advanced Eastern civilizations like China or India. By end of renessance period, Europe was no longer the wild wild west or outpost of human civilization but finally, maturing into a civilization. This happened around 600 years ago. That is very much a 'baby' compared to East Asia, India, etc.

Gandhi said nearly 80 years ago, when asked about what he thinks of western civilization and he said ' Yes,that would be a good idea'.
Well, 80 years later, in my opinion, Gandhi would've taken heart at the progress.

Anyways, this is way OT and i am gonna stop now.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In my opinion, he was humiliated because he was simply not good enough to withstand that spell.
Yes, he may've been old, he might've carried injuries or hell, he might've had a family member die the night before. None of those things change the fact that he was, to borrow an oft-used gaming term, 'Newbified, owned, GG-ed' by Holding and it was embarassing to watch a batsman so completely clueless against some excellent hostile bowling.
The match should NOT have been stopped and it carried on fine : There are clips of it available all over the place for *that* spell of Holding - you could see Close being unable to cope with the pace of Holding. When Holding pitched a few bouncers, Close barely got his head out of the way clumsily. When he pitched it short of a length, Close took hits on his chest and arms. You could see that after a few consecutive bouncers, when the umpire warns Holding, Holding promptly pitched one full and the ball crashed into Close's hips. It wasn't a case of 'bouncer-after-bouncer barrage' to Close- he was simply unable to deal with Holding's pace, regardless of where Holding pitched it. Watching that clip was like watching a cat toy with a mouse. Holding was in utter control of Close and any batsman- nomatter at what level- who gets so thoroughly dominated a bowler should feel humiliated.
If that were me with the bat, I'd feel utterly bested and thus, utterly humiliated. This has nothing to do with skin color as some folks ( no surprise!) would think. Its humiliating when someone gives you such a thorough demonstration that you are not good enough and don't belong at that stage. It'd be like me challenging Federer and getting owned 6-0 6-0 6-0. This is test cricket, not a friendly match at the park or net practice.
Sorry, I am not changing my position on this.

I'm glad you've enjoyed the "clips from all over the place". I saw the whole innings live and your idiotic summing up is so inaccurate it's not even worthy of any further reply.

 

[honestbharani]

What does it matter how spaced-out the games are.

Number of games is the same regardless of timeframe.

I understand what you mean, but I think it is fair enough to assume that a guy who has done well in 5 tests + however many FC games he got in a year, would have kept up that kind of form over 10 tests + however many FC games, because I am of the opinion that these guys, had they been in the current era, would have taken care of their fitness in such a manner that they can be very nearly at their best everyday. But all of this does boil down to opinion of course, which is why comparing players across eras is almost always fruitless.

 

[C_C]

I'm glad you've enjoyed the "clips from all over the place". I saw the whole innings live and your idiotic summing up is so inaccurate it's not even worthy of any further reply.

Either your memory is playing tricks on you or you must think its great courageous display to get utterly owned and smacked around like a doll in front of a annoyed tiger but to me that is the very definition of humiliation.
You could see fear in Close's eyes and every time Holding came down the pitch, Closey averted his eyes. Holding owned him that day and if it were me, i'd have quit after that game.
But anyways, very cogent and well thought out response as usual from you.

 

[Richard]

I understand what you mean, but I think it is fair enough to assume that a guy who has done well in 5 tests + however many FC games he got in a year, would have kept up that kind of form over 10 tests + however many FC games, because I am of the opinion that these guys, had they been in the current era, would have taken care of their fitness in such a manner that they can be very nearly at their best everyday.

Oh, I don't doubt that for a second. I'd say guys that played even 20 or 30 Tests are every bit as eligable to be called great players as those who played 80 or 90. As I say - I find George Headley to be the 2nd-greatest batsman of all, and certainly of his time.