Originally posted by amannionAre you English or something??
Oh for God's sake, get over it.
I love cricket and Don Bradman was a champion, but 'revere' him? Next you'll want to nail him to a cross and start praying to him. Maybe we can name a public holiday after him and buy presents for everyone and tell the kids fairy tales and everything ... we could call it Bradsmas!
The guy was a man who could play a game pre ...[text shortened]... all maniacs. Say whatever you like about The Don ... (just don't disrespect Warney!) 😉
Warne is an awsome player on the field, off the field he is the biggest tool this country has ever seen.
Did Bradman ever take drugs, sleep with his mates wives or give team information to Indian bookies?
Take off your rose tinted glasses mate.
Originally posted by lordhighgusDo you get irony?
Are you English or something??
Warne is an awsome player on the field, off the field he is the biggest tool this country has ever seen.
Did Bradman ever take drugs, sleep with his mates wives or give team information to Indian bookies?
Take off your rose tinted glasses mate.
I think Warne's a complete tool, although he's probably the best bowler this country has ever produced.
Am I English? Piss off.
I'm just sick of how this country turns it sportsmen and women into freakin' gods. They're people who can do some things well. There are plenty of other Aussies who can do plenty of other things well.
A bit of perspective would go down nicely.
Originally posted by boarmanFWIW: When we started a baseball thread the cricketeers, like yourself, invaded it.
Maybe you should start a baseball thread and leave this purely to cricket.
But i guess this happens when you post in a thread that you know nothing about.
"Cricket could learn a lot from baseball." Sir Donald "Babe" Bradman
Originally posted by Red NightDo you know the context of the quote from Bradman?
FWIW: When we started a baseball thread the cricketeers, like yourself, invaded it.
"Cricket could learn a lot from baseball." Sir Donald "Babe" Bradman
Learning a lot from baseball might mean:
1. We should learn to make better hot dogs
2. We should learn to wear beers on our heads.
3. We should learn never to be anything like baseball.
or any one of a million other interpretations, none of which need be that baseball is good. (By the way, I like baseball.)
Originally posted by amannion"Baseball has more snap and dash than cricket." Sir Don
Do you know the context of the quote from Bradman?
Learning a lot from baseball might mean:
1. We should learn to make better hot dogs
2. We should learn to wear beers on our heads.
3. We should learn never to be anything like baseball.
or any one of a million other interpretations, none of which need be that baseball is good. (By the way, I like baseball.)
Bradman also liked baseball. A lot of us believe that he had a dream of playing in the major leagues. In 1932 he jumped at the chance to have his photo taken in a Yankee uniform. He was actually fortunate to have the opportunity, the Australian government was extremely reluctant to let him out of the country, lest he defect.
Originally posted by Red NightStop spamming.
"Baseball has more snap and dash than cricket." Sir Don
Bradman also liked baseball. A lot of us believe that he had a dream of playing in the major leagues. In 1932 he jumped at the chance to have his photo taken in a Yankee uniform. He was actually fortunate to have the opportunity, the Australian government was extremely reluctant to let him out of the country, lest he defect.
Originally posted by mtthwBaseball is played by men who are no good at other sports. FACT 😉
Well, to be fair, soccer is bigger in the US than baseball is in the UK. I have heard of a few baseball players, but it's pretty random so there are lots of gaps in my knowledge.
I've heard of the book by Ed Smith, and it did sound interesting (I think that was where my comparison of cricket batting vs baseball pitching came from - I haven't read the book ...[text shortened]... nd team for a short time but wasn't very successful there, but he's a decent county player.
To try and get back to cricket- a few good all-rounders of modern day, but not great ones:
Chris Gayle
Jacob Oram
Heath Streak
Would Daniel Vettori count now, with his batting seemingly improving?
To whoever mentionned Afridi- he's not great, averaging below 10 in ODIs recently. Think most teams have his number now to be honest.
Just to add a couple of thoughts - I'm sure there's lots of people who can remember allrounders form their own country that haven't been mentioned, so I'll throw in one from NZ, and thats Chris Cairns. His batting average is higher than his bowling average, and he could devastate attacks particularly in the one day arena. But I wouldn't put him in the class of the hadlees/bothams/sobers, though on his day he'd win NZ a test match.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see Dan Vettori move up that list in the future, as his batting is improving immensely, but would have him only tentatively on the all rounder lists at the moment.
I have the utmost respect for Kapil Dev, though I have to admit I always felt cheated when he took the record for most wickets off Hadlee as he played 40 odd more tests than him. So i've always placed him below hadlee on the all rounders list.
My greatest all rounder (test matches) would be Kallis though. High batting average, and will always test the batsman when bowling.
When I started writing this I had to try and think of what makes a good all rounder. Solid batting and solid bowling, or exceptional in one discipline and solid in the other? Then you have to weight what is more important, the scoring runs or the taking wickets? On this basis, I'm still going with Kallis, but my number two would be Imran Khan. Looking at the stats he would score more runs off the other all rounders, and then get more of them out cheaper, though I'm not a statitician so I'm going on pure instinct here. Sobers looks good, but I don't know enough about him. I'll have a read up!
Could you almost base this discussion on the difference between batting average and bowling average? (minimum so many runs (3,000) and minimum so many wickets e.g. 200), then I suppose after that it becomes susseptable to the choosers personality.
Just for the record, my top wicketkeeper batsman is Andy Flower. and only Sangakarra comes close for me. Alec Stewart, looked as though he'd get hurt everytime I saw him bat, Gilchrist is great in periods but has droughts in between. Sangakarra is more complete as a batsman than any keeper currently playing, but Andy Flower was a remarkable batter, in a team that was the bottom of the world, playing the top teams in the world.
The end!
Originally posted by welsharnieI don't see why not. His test batting average is around 25, which is pretty good for a bowler, but if you just look at his recent matches it looks even more impressive.
Would Daniel Vettori count now, with his batting seemingly improving?
He was a fair way up the ICC allrounder rankings last time I looked, I think. I'll try and dig them up.
These are the current ICC player rankings for test allrounders - as you can see there are a few who would be mainly thought of as bowlers, and they've got a big gap between 2 and 3. Suggests a shortage of top allrounders around at the moment, perhaps?
1. Kallis
2. Flintoff
3. Vettori
4. Pollock
5. Pathan
6. Vaas
7. Warne
8. Gayle
9. Jayasuriya
10. Kumble