Other Cricket
-
@Smudge said in Other Cricket:
@mariner4life said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
I don’t reckon they have quite the same depth in the bowling departmen
oof
maybe not from the early 90s
but beyond that? The four they have now are unlikely to make the 2nd XI and they are brilliant.
Even spin, i mean Warnie walks in. Nathan Lyon has 539 wickets.
Stuart MacGill has 200+ wickets at less than 30 as the forgotten leg spinner who only played when Warnie got himself suspended. And that's before black and white dudes like Richie Benaud.i think if you start listing them out the list will start stretching fast than you think.
Add in the great Caversham export Clarrie Grimmett as well as Bill 'Tiger' O'Reilly from those black and white dudes.
Grimmets stats are that good, I suspect if he was born in Aus he is talked about more.
Will remove tinfoil hat now lol
-
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
@No-Quarter said in Other Cricket:
Honestly ever since I made that post about Smith being past it and his technique being found out he's just piled on the runs. Regret saying anything now.
He’d have over 12,000 runs if he wasn’t such a cheating Aussie fuckwit
( doing a @Virgil post since he’s not here much anymore )
Cheating crying fluffybunny…
Interesting article on cricinfo
He may be the last to go past 10,000 runs for a while
Next closest is our GOAT Kane who’s 750 odd short but we have fuck all tests scheduled this year.
Then there’s Kohli who’s about the same amount of runs short. But given all bowlers only need to toss the ball around 4th or 5th stump these days to embarrass him he may be on limited time.. and he has 5 tests in England too look ‘forward’ to
Behind then are a couple of guys 2,000 runs away who won’t be around that much longerWe need to petition NZ cricket to arrange a 5 test series at home vs Zimbabwe to make sure Kane gets there before he calls it a day
-
@Virgil said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
@No-Quarter said in Other Cricket:
Honestly ever since I made that post about Smith being past it and his technique being found out he's just piled on the runs. Regret saying anything now.
He’d have over 12,000 runs if he wasn’t such a cheating Aussie fuckwit
( doing a @Virgil post since he’s not here much anymore )
Cheating crying fluffybunny…
Interesting article on cricinfo
He may be the last to go past 10,000 runs for a while
Next closest is our GOAT Kane who’s 750 odd short but we have fuck all tests scheduled this year.
Then there’s Kohli who’s about the same amount of runs short. But given all bowlers only need to toss the ball around 4th or 5th stump these days to embarrass him he may be on limited time.. and he has 5 tests in England too look ‘forward’ to
Behind then are a couple of guys 2,000 runs away who won’t be around that much longerWe need to petition NZ cricket to arrange a 5 test series at home vs Zimbabwe to make sure Kane gets there before he calls it a day
Yeah due to schedule and the fact he is human and will have the odd fuck up the last 750 may take awhile.
In news that will surprise absolutely no one Ricky Ponting reckons Smith is the best of the bunch
Is Steve Smith the greatest of his generation? Ricky Ponting weighs in 'Fab-Four' debate
Ricky Ponting has weighed in on the 'Fab Four' debate, making a strong case for Steve Smith as the greatest batter of his generation. Find out what makes Smith stand out!
-
-
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Back to the game in question……
Solid win Australia…..
That new fella Kuhnemann might feel a bit aggrieved he didn’t get MOM.
A few of the comms had him picked for it.
Hard to go past a double ton vs a spineless attack tho
-
-
@antipodean I mostly agree.
There are some (Sobers) who would be up there - but Kallis has to be in the GOAT conversation.
-
Kallis was one of the best batsmen in history.
Plus as a bowler probably about as good as Chris Martin. That adds up to a true generational cricketer. The only all rounders who compare are Sobers and perhaps Imran Khan. Maybe Kallis suffers a bit by being a bit "boring" compared to Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting etc ?
But at the risk of being boring myself and repeating what I've said already the greatest cricketer ever was Don Bradman.
I think for Kallis to be genuinely compared to him he'd need to take a ridiculous 400 odd wickets at under 25.
Then again, Bradman was never much of a bowler so I guess that argument can possibly be made
-
-
Greatest and best are not the same
-
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
the greatest cricketer ever was Don Bradman.
absolutely agree.
I should have clarified: for allrounders, Kallis is in the GOAT conversation.
Kallis played in an era when other cricketers took it seriously. He's also generally liked by his teammates. That counts IMO.
-
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
the greatest cricketer ever was Don Bradman.
absolutely agree.
I should have clarified: for allrounders, Kallis is in the GOAT conversation.
100%.
We love Paddles but his batting isn't as good as Kallis's bowling was so can't be compared.
Beefy was a monster early on but played about 50 tests too many, his figures went from freakish to merely really good. A personal favourite but I'm not sure quite where he sits.
Kapil Dev was very good but mainly got to where he got through sheer longevity, of course if you ask a billion Indians he was the GOAT.
Imran Khan was a legend, like Kallis possibly underrated ? In the 80s alone he averaged over 50 with the bat and 19 with the ball. Wow. I think he is in the conversation with Kallis and Sobers.
Flintoff, Stokes, Pollock, Ashwin, Jadeja, Cairns, Vettori of recent vintage are/were very good players. None serious challengers to Kallis though. Pollock or Ashwin maybe closest ? All much more "bowling" all rounders though. Shakib Al Hasan is more of a batting all rounder and bloody good, still not close to JK or GS though.
-
Whilst I respect Kallis greatly for his achievements - he feels like a bit of a stats monster to me.
In other words I don't think I'll recall looking back and marvelling at the times I got to see Kallis play live. He wasn't the most exciting of bowlers or batsmen. Rather stoic and felt like an accumulator of stats rather than a swashbuckling match winner.
Just a personal view.
-
If you go onto Statsguru and look at the very crude "difference between batting and bowling average" stat for bowlers with 100 wickets, then the top 4 are
Sobers
Kallis
Imran
Miller
and in my opinion, those are the 4 main contenders - the top 2 near the very best of all time as batsmen and very good bowlers, the next 2 near the very best of all time as bowlers and very good batsmen.Kallis is definitely the dullest of the 4. Sobers was a swashbuckling batsman, could bowl with the new ball and then bowl various flavours of spin. Imran was fearsome with the ball and a classical batsman. Miller was a legendary quick bowler who also liked to buckle his swash.
Lots of very good players underneath those 4 - the next 10 are
Jadeja, Pollock, Goddard, Greig, Shakib, Noble, Botham, Hadlee, Cairns, Davidson. -
@KiwiPie said in Other Cricket:
If you go onto Statsguru and look at the very crude "difference between batting and bowling average" stat for bowlers with 100 wickets, then the top 4 are
Sobers
Kallis
Imran
Miller
and in my opinion, those are the 4 main contenders - the top 2 near the very best of all time as batsmen and very good bowlers, the next 2 near the very best of all time as bowlers and very good batsmen.Kallis is definitely the dullest of the 4. Sobers was a swashbuckling batsman, could bowl with the new ball and then bowl various flavours of spin. Imran was fearsome with the ball and a classical batsman. Miller was a legendary quick bowler who also liked to buckle his swash.
Lots of very good players underneath those 4 - the next 10 are
Jadeja, Pollock, Goddard, Greig, Shakib, Noble, Botham, Hadlee, Cairns, Davidson.Yeah that Keith Miller who I completely forgot about sounded like a gun. He needs to be in the conversation.
As I've whinged on here many times though the term all rounder still gets thrown around far too often especially if a bowler plays a flukey gem of an innings or a batsman turns the arm over and gets some cheeky wickets.
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
-
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
-
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
Interesting point.
The two most dominant teams of my cricketing watching memories ( West Indies of the 80s and Australia of the 2000s ) never had real all rounders consistently. At best they had a few batsmen who could bowl a bit and a few bowlers who could hold a bat.
But in teams with, dare I say it, weaker players across the board all rounders are a godsend. It sure helped that our spin bowling captain was also one of our best batsmen about 15 years ago as one glaring example.
-
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
Spoken like a fan of a national side that almost always has six top batters, four great bowlers, and a good keeper available
