It depends what high regard is ?For some reason I thought Fanie took over 100. And I know a little bit about Schultz but didnt know he was held in as high regard as the rest mentioned
I have heard it suggested (quite wrongly, obviously) that there is a poster on this forum who talks Sylvers up way too far, but you can be forgiven for overlooking himjust reaslied I forgot Sylvester Clarke. fail thread, mods allow users to delete threads
Many good years with the Mean Machine where everybody who played with and against him, just knows how good he was .... and frighteningI have heard it suggested (quite wrongly, obviously) that there is a poster on this forum who talks Sylvers up way too far, but you can be forgiven for overlooking him
Went for Lol, obviously, and Cowie who has a hugely impressive record even though he only got to play three Tests in his prime, and never got to bowl against New Zealand
Of course.Procter belongs in that list perhaps?
161, so quite a bit over 100 wickets.Did Ian Bishop take 100 test wickets?
And then there's the guys from ages ago, who probably didn't play enough matches.
Spofforth of course. And who were the buys opening for Australia in the early 1920s?
Jack Gregory (85 wickets) and Ted McDonald (43).Did Ian Bishop take 100 test wickets?
And then there's the guys from ages ago, who probably didn't play enough matches.
Spofforth of course. And who were the buys opening for Australia in the early 1920s?