capt_Luffy
Hall of Fame Member
Hammond surely will win in '28 AshesDon Bradman played 11 test series.
I am guessing except the Bodyline, he would have won every single one of them.
Hammond surely will win in '28 AshesDon Bradman played 11 test series.
I am guessing except the Bodyline, he would have won every single one of them.
On MOS, Imran outdoes both Hadlee and Marshall and everyone else and no MOS against minnows and three against the WI. In the 1980s he played 16 series and was MOS in 8 of them including in WI, Aus, Ind and Eng twice.View attachment 47380
@smash84 actually underestimated Hadlee's margin: he has 33 1/3% more POTS than Marshall who has 25% fewer POTS than Hadlee (8 is 33 1/3% bigger than 6 which is 25% smaller than 8).
Hadlee has just one POTS against SL, BTW, not two unless you were talking about the number of series played against SL in which case Hadlee, in fact, played three series against them: two Tests in 1983, three in 1984 and one in 1987 (that series was abandoned due to civil unrest).
I don't think they gave a POTS award for the 1980 NZ-WI series but if they had, Hadlee would have surely won it for his superb all-round performances:
View attachment 47381
So that makes it 9 POTS for Hadlee, putting him 50% ahead of Marshall!
Remember, you mustn't speak ill of the dead:
View attachment 47382
Yes.Hammond surely will win in '28 Ashes
One was for batting thoughOn MOS, Imran outdoes both Hadlee and Marshall and everyone else and no MOS against minnows and three against the WI. In the 1980s he played 16 series and was MOS in 8 of them including in WI, Aus, Ind and Eng twice.
Sure and to be fair a couple other he had batting contributions.One was for batting though
ARs and home/minnows bashers.
Just a reminder.
Off the top off my head, Hammond wins 28-29 Ashes and Larwood wins 32-33 Ashes.Don Bradman played 11 test series.
I am guessing except the Bodyline, he would have won every single one of them.
So this is it, after everything else, were down to conjecture.
I don't think isn't the basis of an argument.
Marshall was quicker than all of those gentleman and for a sustained period. He had a ridiculously condensed schedule of 5 test series, and a full county load. They didn't have a spinner to eat overs and he went all out. Yes, it would have worn on his body.
But there's nothing besides guesses at this point that would project how he would have adapted or performed.
Anyways, hope you don't take any of this personally, I do rate you as a poster.
I can spot one mistake without digging too deep, Jack White was English
Also Hutton scored more than 364 runs in that series.I can spot one mistake without digging too deep, Jack White was English
After trying, apparently not.Also Hutton scored more than 364 runs in that series.
Though actually, using AI to determine MOTS is not a horrible idea. (Grok, not ChatGPT)
Just from seeing the list, Morris outscored Bradman in his last tour of England, 1948 series. The list seems to miss when West Indies toured here and iirc Ponsford and Bradman scored around similar runs and iirc Grimmett ran riot against those WI batsman.
Will it though, anytime soon?AI is making many mistakes for now.
It is just at its infancy and will do better in future.
Microsoft just eliminated 3% of the workforce.Will it though, anytime soon?
Right now we can't get it to stop agreeing with everything we say.
For all the efforts I put and painstakingly determined a (sometimes two) MoTS from every 19th Century Series.Also Hutton scored more than 364 runs in that series.
Though actually, using AI to determine MOTS is not a horrible idea. (Grok, not ChatGPT)