-
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.
Put these five players in order
- Thread starter Howe_zat
- Start date
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nothing to do with country of birth then?
Athlai
Not Terrible
I'd confirm for the joke but I can't be bothered checking if they were actually all born in England. Something you definitely can't count on when you're listing 5 English Test players in the last couple decades.
adub
International Captain
Def Gough and Gus as the best English quicks of the time. Would probably have incredible records had they got to play with McGrath and Warne rather than against.
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The joke was that Caddick was born in New Zealand. Others are 100% English AFAIK.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Doesn't he think everyone who claims to be above 6ft (so approx 1.8m) is lying about their height?
Athlai
Not Terrible
Yeah I'm very interested to see TH weigh in on the heights I listed.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
thierry henry
International Coach
Crap list, Harmison definitely taller than Flintoff (6'4" seems a low listing for him tbh) and Hoggard is dreaming claiming 6'2", surely.
thierry henry
International Coach
tbh on closer inspection I think Hoggard is a little taller than I thought but I'd still say 6'1" is a better shout than 6'2"
Last edited:
thierry henry
International Coach
At the risk of making a classic "TH just goes off raw stats" error- I think it's a bit perverse to rate Flintoff above Harmison when they were contemporaries and Harmison (a) took more wickets (b) at a better average (c) in far fewer tests and at a far greater wickets-per-test and (d) playing as a specialist and frontline bowler with Freddie as a 3rd or 4th seamer, which is reflected by the above stats.
Perhaps some vigorous number crunching would make a case for Flintoff, but prima facie it looks like an "ability and perception over output" type of call. Albeit in a more nuanced way because Harmison is perceived as having had a lot of ability himself but is perhaps downgraded because he "could have done more" whereas Flintoff is given a pass of sorts because his relative lack of output with the ball is put down to being due to injury/misfortune/not quite bowling the right length/being picked before he was ready and various other factors, but not a lack of will/desire/ticker.
Perhaps some vigorous number crunching would make a case for Flintoff, but prima facie it looks like an "ability and perception over output" type of call. Albeit in a more nuanced way because Harmison is perceived as having had a lot of ability himself but is perhaps downgraded because he "could have done more" whereas Flintoff is given a pass of sorts because his relative lack of output with the ball is put down to being due to injury/misfortune/not quite bowling the right length/being picked before he was ready and various other factors, but not a lack of will/desire/ticker.
Last edited: