Scyld Berry 30 greatest test fast bowlers

[capt_Luffy]

Can you pull off this Rock character as pfp?

I think can pull of his character from Jumanji.

 

[Johan]

I think can pull of his character from Jumanji.

No, can you pull this one off, aka a character he actually put effort into?

 

[capt_Luffy]

No, can you pull this one off, aka a character he actually put effort into?

Jumanji was Good.

 

[Johan]

Jumanji was Good.

anything not to watch

 

[capt_Luffy]

anything not to watch

Don't want to feed WWE to my YT algo

 

[Thala_0710]

And now wtf is a "hornswoggle"?? Sounds like an Irish mythical creature, like a distant cousin of the leprechaun, or a parody for a German car company.

You got the Irish part right

 

[Johan]

By the way, Thala, Greenidge is life or death with Gower

 

[subshakerz]

Literally no one is comparing it to a primary skill.

No one.

You are by insisting it should be a criteria of selection, yet when it actually comes down to a decision (Hammond or Smith vs Tendulkar), you don't do it. And you can't say there is a big difference in primary.

 

[Thala_0710]

By the way, Thala, Greenidge is life or death with Gower

Greenidge beat Gooch 10-6. Gower should be easier work

 

[Johan]

Greenidge beat Gooch 10-6. Gower should be easier work

Polls do not validate opinions, I made the post in Dev vs Greenidge, counter me.

 

[Thala_0710]

Polls do not validate opinions, I made the post in Dev vs Greenidge, counter me.

The weekend is coming up. I'll do it then

 

[Johan]

The weekend is coming up. I'll do it then

best of luck lad

 

[kyear2]

Agreed we don't need to bring slips into it. Especially since you are willing to ignore an ATG slip like Hammond.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I'll be very clear.

It's a tie breaker or differentiator between very similar players, I'll give an example. If, as some do, I decided to go Miller at 6 and only went with one of Richards or Tendulkar, it will be Richards, because of same and the unique traits he brings to the line up.

It's also why I go with Younis over Miandad when I select a SC XI, and have expressed that previously as well.

One of the reasons I also go with Barry as my 2nd opener is also because he was superb in the slips. As I said, he fills 3 of my 4 criteria for the position (let's see if Jaiswal can improve there as well and give me all 4)

A team needs to have at least 3 excellent slips.

My AT XI already has that however, and I've explained this before. If my primary option at 1st was Warne, then yes, that heightens the need, but that's not the case.

But I should also say that it's close and he's definitely my 12th man. And it's close for multiple reasons.

He's definitely a top 10 quality batsman and meets any criteria for selection on the front. He, Lara and Smith are first men out and very much on the short list with the chosen 4.
He's also very much a like for like replacement for Tendulkar, as they are similarly classical batsmen.

He's the GOAT 1st slip (along with Simpson) and that's just as tempting to me as the #batdeep is to some, and his presence allows Barry to go to gully.
But to add to that, he's a much more viable 6th bowling option, and they are utilized considerably more often than not in closely matches series. Tendulkar nor Viv are suitable for that role.

But ultimately Sachin is in the BAB debate and has more experience vs better attacks. And I have a great 1st slip, and it's the least difficult and exposed of the 3, and the critical 2nd slot is capably manned.

Is that a detailed enough explanation?

 

[kyear2]

wasn't the process like super strange? I remember reading all the hundred voters got 5 votes each, and immediately two went to Sir Donald Bradman and Sir Garfield Sobers as those two being the two greatest cricketers ever is and was common sense, leaving the voters with 3 votes each functionally, so even the most biased englishman would only be able to squeeze three English players in their votes, the five highest rated English bats were Doctor Grace, Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton and Compton, then you have Larwood, Trueman and Botham, and then you get to Sydney Barnes and Wilfred Rhodes, so the English players definitely had much more competition.

Feel like the method is too weird to really be applicable or credible.

With regards to the first highlighted portion, basically yeah. Quite a few to split basically what amounted to 3 votes between.

And most definitely. It was a cluster****, really no other word for it.

The overwhelming majority of players on that list has no business being there, and everyone was just trying to get "their guy" in.

There's nothing to gleaned from such a list.

 

[kyear2]

The other 4 would be interesting

Most likely Warne would be 2, then Sachin and Viv.

The 5th would be a toss up, would almost definitely be a pacer / pacer all rounder.

 

[subshakerz]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I'll be very clear.

It's a tie breaker or differentiator between very similar players, I'll give an example. If, as some do, I decided to go Miller at 6 and only went with one of Richards or Tendulkar, it will be Richards, because of same and the unique traits he brings to the line up.

It's also why I go with Younis over Miandad when I select a SC XI, and have expressed that previously as well.

One of the reasons I also go with Barry as my 2nd opener is also because he was superb in the slips. As I said, he fills 3 of my 4 criteria for the position (let's see if Jaiswal can improve there as well and give me all 4)

A team needs to have at least 3 excellent slips.

My AT XI already has that however, and I've explained this before. If my primary option at 1st was Warne, then yes, that heightens the need, but that's not the case.

But I should also say that it's close and he's definitely my 12th man. And it's close for multiple reasons.

He's definitely a top 10 quality batsman and meets any criteria for selection on the front. He, Lara and Smith are first men out and very much on the short list with the chosen 4.
He's also very much a like for like replacement for Tendulkar, as they are similarly classical batsmen.

He's the GOAT 1st slip (along with Simpson) and that's just as tempting to me as the #batdeep is to some, and his presence allows Barry to go to gully.
But to add to that, he's a much more viable 6th bowling option, and they are utilized considerably more often than not in closely matches series. Tendulkar nor Viv are suitable for that role.

But ultimately Sachin is in the BAB debate and has more experience vs better attacks. And I have a great 1st slip, and it's the least difficult and exposed of the 3, and the critical 2nd slot is capably manned.

Is that a detailed enough explanation?

So which selections made by CW do you have issues with regarding slips specifically and feel these skills are being overlooked?

 

[kyear2]

Not to mention, it literally was Barry as an established bat in his peak and Gavaskar beginning his Test career. If not for some crazy performance like Richards in 1976, it takes a fair few years and performances for a new batsman to get a higher rating than an established one.

Considering that Barry was also relatively new to the scene in '70. And Sunny had quite the introduction in '71 as well, this is just reaching and trying to down play his accomplishments.

All should be fairly clear for Kyear but somehow he persists in these tired points.

What tired points?

What you're saying is that my opinion is less valid than yours and I shouldn't be allowed to express mine.

But one, it's never been just my opinion, and among those who's watched him still believe him to be better.

This is no longer about you representing your point, it's trying to make mine seem invalid and I'll continue to dispute that.

Please remember that Barry Richards made the same Cricinfo 2nd XI that Imran and Gavaskar made, or were they also ignorant to the history of the game and not qualified to make such teams?


Would be genuinely interested to hear both your responses to that one. Because both of you like to pretend that I'm the only one who rates him that highly.

 

[subshakerz]

Considering that Barry was also relatively new to the scene in '70. And Sunny had quite the introduction in '71 as well, this is just reaching and trying to down play his accomplishments.



What tired points?

What you're saying is that my opinion is less valid than yours and I shouldn't be allowed to express mine.

But one, it's never been just my opinion, and among those who's watched him still believe him to be better.

This is no longer about you representing your point, it's trying to make mine seem invalid and I'll continue to dispute that.

Please remember that Barry Richards made the same Cricinfo 2nd XI that Imran and Gavaskar made, or were they also ignorant to the history of the game and not qualified to make such teams?


Would be genuinely interested to hear both your responses to that one. Because both of you like to pretend that I'm the only one who rates him that highly.

Peterhrt just shared 100 ATG XIs and Gavsaskar has overwhelming superiority there. How can you downplay that and just focus on the Wisden XI?

Btw in the Wisden XI, Lillee received more votes than Marshall and Akram.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Considering that Barry was also relatively new to the scene in '70. And Sunny had quite the introduction in '71 as well, this is just reaching and trying to down play his accomplishments.



What tired points?

What you're saying is that my opinion is less valid than yours and I shouldn't be allowed to express mine.

But one, it's never been just my opinion, and among those who's watched him still believe him to be better.

This is no longer about you representing your point, it's trying to make mine seem invalid and I'll continue to dispute that.

Please remember that Barry Richards made the same Cricinfo 2nd XI that Imran and Gavaskar made, or were they also ignorant to the history of the game and not qualified to make such teams?


Would be genuinely interested to hear both your responses to that one. Because both of you like to pretend that I'm the only one who rates him that highly.

Barry was playing FC from 1965, he didn't made debut in 67 for a bar fight. And Gavaskar had an explosive start but then mellowed out. His subsequent Aus and Eng tours both were mid. His 71 WI Series, as you would expect, did much for his reputation in the Carribbean, especially Guyana. Whole ass calypsos were written for him. Nothing here that you don't know, just pretend it doesn't exists.
And yes, Barry made the same 2nd XI, but was clearly the second choice with Gavaskar missing out from the first XI by a single vote. Sutcliffe and Boycott weren't even available to be voted in. Again, nothing you don't know.

 

[subshakerz]

Barry was playing FC from 1965, he didn't made debut in 67 for a bar fight. And Gavaskar had an explosive start but then mellowed out. His subsequent Aus and Eng tours both were mid. His 71 WI Series, as you would expect, did much for his reputation in the Carribbean, especially Guyana. Whole ass calypsos were written for him. Nothing here that you don't know, just pretend it doesn't exists.

It's just strange to compare someone based on a five year period when he was maybe rated better but then the other plays another decade in international cricketers after that