Bret Hart was the closest a wrestler came to making professional wrestling feel real. Kurt Angle was complete package - One minute he could act goofy and the next minute he could make even Brock Lesnar or Stone Cold tap out since his Olympic medal gave him lots of legitimacy.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts
Wouldn't take out Zimbabwe of that era as they were no pushovers back then. Tendulkar only played them between 1992 and 2002 and India lost 2 matches against them. There was one another close match too which India just about won and a few draws too apart from a few resounding wins.
By the 2000s they were very much minnows, on the spicier Zimbabwean wickets they could be a somewhat competitive side but on the slower flatter ones like post-2000 India, they very much were non competitive, and arguably worse than Bangladesh after Streak retired.
You mean by the point where Sachin didn’t play them?
ah I see this is going to be me pointing out the 2000 series just for you to go that the decade starts at 1 Jan 2001
No this is me point out that Streak was always there when Sachin played them and up until Streak and Flower were gone Zimbabwe were far from minnows.
They had some good bats but what was their bowling lineup other than streak and what was their overall average with the ball in the first half of the 2000s?
I think it's dishonest to first point Zimbabwe was poor post Streak retirement and then when brought in Sachin always played with Streak, that the rest of the lineup was shitty. It always was shitty bar Streak. On that Series Blignaught won Zimbabwe a match, which resulted in the draw. I don't think not counting them is right.
My statement regarding them being genuinely Bangladesh tier post Streak was more general than a targetted one.
I get it, but when specifically being talked about re Sachin facing them, it's not just applicable. He always played them when they were a respectable lineup and India even lost a few of those games and even drew Series
Of Course then, my standard for minnows is bowling average over a significant period of time going north of 40, that's true with even Streak era 2000s Zim, if you don't believe Zimbabwe to be minnows then you are welcome representing them as non minnows.
I think it should be on game to game basis on such a small sample. At most I can consider the 2000s Zimbabwe minnowish, but don't think they were minnow as well. 2001 teams with Blignaught and Price for support where Zim drew a Series off of bowling certainly aren't. And like, is it really worth it to consider a team a minnow for 2 games in the middle of his 9, and they drew one of them too.
Are you trying to change my mind on Zim being minnows away from home? Though, I'd sooner abolish the concept of minnows.
All I am saying is I have seen worse bowling attacks than Streak paired with Strang, Price, Blignaught, Olonga, etc. And that the shift clearly happened with the retirement of Flower and Streak, an arbitrary cut off date of the turn of the millennium is pretty pointless. I always thought it was widely accepted than Zimbabwe turned minnow after they retired, not when the millennium turned.
Okay, Like I said, If you consider them Test Standard (I don't, especially not away) then that's fine, 55 is still not far from what Hobbs and Sobers manage, it's infact lower. For me, If I'm to count runs against Zimbabwe on slow dead wickets, I might as well abolishe the concept of minnows at that point. For example, What makes Ireland minnow when they almost toppled England?
I surely won't not rate runs to Afghanistan on a good Turner. A minnow to me is a team which has no job in Test arena, like 2000s Bangladesh. A team being termed one for 2 games just seems a bit baffling.
almost beat the strongest Australian time of all time
Lol Warne went wicketless with 20 overs and 112 runs in the 1st innings while MacGill got 8!!
Yeah, we should just abolish the term minnow at this point, Ireland almost beat England as I said.