age_master
Hall of Fame Member
Gilly in the top 5, lest see who is better, Hayden, Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar, thats 4 i would say gilly is 5... maybe the south african skipper, thats all i caan think that are close
M.Hayden, R.Ponting, B.Lara, S.Tendulkar, R.Dravid, M.Richardson, M.Vaughan (Although it's a lean patch) just to name a few extra.age_master said:Gilly in the top 5, lest see who is better, Hayden, Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar, thats 4 i would say gilly is 5... maybe the south african skipper, thats all i caan think that are close
There was a left-arm chinamen bowler who took a bag of wickets in a Test match as the No. 2 spinner not so long ago who everyone anoited the new chosen one...and what's he doing now? Isn't he confined to the ranks of the pyjama clad?Andre said:Hogg wasn't too bad. He bowled quite tidly, putting pressure on the batsmen.
He just needs a few wickets to gain confidence at the top level. Everyone wrote him off when he returned to ODI's and he ended up coming good
Let's wait and see before giving the mantle to the guy who's bowled for just 2 seasons. Regardless of state.
Hmm, shows how much you know if you're putting Smith up there with that lot - he's played about 2 good innings in his career (and one of those shouldn't have happened if Hussain's head had been clear)age_master said:Gilly in the top 5, lest see who is better, Hayden, Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar, thats 4 i would say gilly is 5... maybe the south african skipper, thats all i caan think that are close
No - what is total and utter rubbish is saying that being dropped is the same as edging just short of slip (or indeed hitting the ball in the air within inches of a fielder on any side).Blewy said:Saying that a players average is inflated because he gets dropped alot, is just the same as saying a players average is inflated because he gets alot of edges which fall short of slip...
TOTAL AND UTTER RUBBISH.....
The Cricinfo bal-by-ball is frequently wrong - speaking from first-hand experience.Richard said:
The CricInfo ball-by-ball is immensely unlikely to be wrong so S_V, you appear to have corrected me in a misguided idea..
Not criticising because I agree but just looked at his stats and he's reached a land mark 19 times (43%) in his 44 innings. However 16 of them have only been 50s, does he lose concentration or something?Tim said:I know Richardson ain't that flashy, but an average nigh on 50 after 27 tests is pretty good.
And to think some of us weren't even watching the game, but providing a service!luckyeddie said:The Cricinfo bal-by-ball is frequently wrong - speaking from first-hand experience.
During WC 2003, the Cricket Web staff covered the semi-finals and final ball-by-ball. Not only were we quicker on the ball, we got things right a damned sight more often than they did. A couple of days after the final, I compared our coverage with theirs and found that there were frequent occasions when their coverage consisted of
13.1 bowler A to batsman B - no run
13.2 bowler A to batsman B - no run
etc for 5 or 6 overs in succession (where they had lost the thread, refreshed the script, had technical trouble and so forth).
There were instances where we said a catch was dropped and they had no mention - I was intrigued and checked my tv recording of the games and discovered that we were correct.
You haven't got a bbb on the First Test of 2000\01 by any chance, ed?luckyeddie said:The Cricinfo bal-by-ball is frequently wrong - speaking from first-hand experience.
During WC 2003, the Cricket Web staff covered the semi-finals and final ball-by-ball. Not only were we quicker on the ball, we got things right a damned sight more often than they did. A couple of days after the final, I compared our coverage with theirs and found that there were frequent occasions when their coverage consisted of
13.1 bowler A to batsman B - no run
13.2 bowler A to batsman B - no run
etc for 5 or 6 overs in succession (where they had lost the thread, refreshed the script, had technical trouble and so forth).
There were instances where we said a catch was dropped and they had no mention - I was intrigued and checked my tv recording of the games and discovered that we were correct.
This is not really a 'we are better than them' thing - there were times when we got in a hopeless pickle too. It's just that ball-by-ball is done 'on the fly' and it is a horrendously difficult thing to do.
A bit like Zimbabwe in this series!Neil Pickup said:We just leave them to die quietly.
That said, the means of slaughter certainly wasn't quite...marc71178 said:A bit like Zimbabwe in this series!
Purely and simply, because I don't like Hayden and I don't like seeing such a poignant World record to his name. I don't try to take anything away from him (unless he should have been caught in the 340s at long-on), but I still don't like it.Mr. Ponting said:Why would you want Hayden in the record books for only a short time? Yes, it was against a fairly weak bowling attack, but 380 is simply phenomenal. Nothing should be taken away from him.