Other Cricket
-
@Chris-B said in Other Cricket:
India pick the same team.
They're crushing the Windies again, but I wonder about their selections.
Jaiswal, KL Rahul, Sundarsan and Shubman as specialist batsmen
Jadeja, Durel, Reddy and Washington as allrounders.
Kuldeep, Jasprit and Siraj as specialist bowlers.
Lots of bowling, a couple of keepers - the batting looks a bit light against the best teams.
It’s only the Windies
-
One of those AI generated things…….but pretty accurate ( aside from proof reading the NZ bit )
Australia - yes
India - yes ( although Kapil Dev usually gets a mention in things like this, Sunil Gavaskar worth a mention too )
Pakistan - yes
South Africa - yes
Sri Lanka - yes ( although Kumar Sangakarra gets in if Murali is found to be a chucker )
Bangladesh - yes
West Indies - no ( You'd have to go Gary Sobers, could argue Brian Lara, Malcom Marshall, Curtly Ambrose and possibly others )
NZ - yes ( although will assess for sure once KW has retired )
Afghanistan - I presume so
England - no ( WG Grace, Sydney Barnes, Walter Hammond, Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton possibly more deserving )
Zimbabwe - yes -
Tendulkar the best Indian cricketer, but if you were about to play a series in India, Kohli would be a better choice. He thrived in that environment, and it really brought out the best in him. Bumrah might go past both of them though.
Can't go past the West Indian bowlers, Marshall, Holding or even Big Bird Garner. Richards and Sobers are both legends and some of my favourite cricketers of all time, but to be a cliché, bowlers win matches, batters draw matches.
Not sold on Kallis. Again, I'd go after one of the bowlers (they've had plenty!).
Dunno who this Hardlee fellow is.
Ian Botham the most interesting. At his peak he was the greatest all rounder to ever play, but he really only produced that for a few seasons. I can see why you pick him though.
-
@Cyclops said in Other Cricket:
Tendulkar the best Indian cricketer, but if you were about to play a series in India, Kohli would be a better choice. He thrived in that environment, and it really brought out the best in him. Bumrah might go past both of them though.
Can't go past the West Indian bowlers, Marshall, Holding or even Big Bird Garner. Richards and Sobers are both legends and some of my favourite cricketers of all time, but to be a cliché, bowlers win matches, batters draw matches.
Not sold on Kallis. Again, I'd go after one of the bowlers (they've had plenty!).
Dunno who this Hardlee fellow is.
Ian Botham the most interesting. At his peak he was the greatest all rounder to ever play, but he really only produced that for a few seasons. I can see why you pick him though.
Yeah will be interesting how Bumrahs career ends up. A lot of those quick bowlers fade a bit, Waqar Younis springs to mind as one who did.
In terms of the Windies you'd have to pick Sobers ( one of the best batsmen ever and a good, very versatile bowler ). But the bowlers you mention are all greats in their own right.
Kallis ? on paper he gets in comfortably but Shaun Pollock, Allan Donald and Dale Steyn were all absolutely outstanding fast bowlers ( and Pollock was a good batsman too ). Perhaps its closer than I think.
Peak Beefy was amazing and one of my favourite players ever but worth pointing out he never did well against the very best of his era, even at his peak he had ordinary stats against the Windies. Any one of the old boys I mention could be an option.
You're ok with Bradman, Murali, Imran and the others then ?
-
Yeah much as I hate to admit it, Imran is probably the best of the 80s 'big 4'.
Bradman is Bradman. He's in the dictionary for being in the best.
Flower, Shakib and Khan clearly the best of a limited field (same as Hadlee pre Kane to be fair).
Murali is closer, because Sangakkara is sensational batter, but Murali is one of the few spinners to go to India and make the Indian batsmen squirm. Even Warne couldn't do that. I've never bought into the chucking thing.
-
@Cyclops said in Other Cricket:
Yeah much as I hate to admit it, Imran is probably the best of the 80s 'big 4'.
Bradman is Bradman. He's in the dictionary for being in the best.
Flower, Shakib and Khan clearly the best of a limited field (same as Hadlee pre Kane to be fair).
Murali is closer, because Sangakkara is sensational batter, but Murali is one of the few spinners to go to India and make the Indian batsmen squirm. Even Warne couldn't do that. I've never bought into the chucking thing.
Imran in the 80s averaged about 19 with the ball and 50 with the bat. Mind blowing really ( although he got quite a few not outs )
Hadlee took more wickets in this period for an average a tiny bit higher, very little in it but Imrans superior batting and the fact he was captain as well make him an absolute generational great.
It's easy to label Sangakkara as a home track bully ( he averaged 60 at home ) but goddamn it, he averaged 54 away too !!!! statistically on paper better than Tendulkar, Dravid, Lara, Ponting, Kallis etc. Just never captured the imagination like they did perhaps ? and obviously a lot of his away runs were on subcontinent pitches ?
He just doesn't seem to get mentioned alongside those guys.
-
man turning pitches can be fun to watch. But blow that for a batsman. One of the balls got delivered from the outside of the crease, heading down leg, pitched on leg and took off stump past the bat. Just insane. You'd walk off thinking you didn't do too badly.
-
Australia playing India in ODIs - Oz won the first two. Watched a bit of the second one the other night.
Third one is on. Oz were cruising but lost their last 7 wickets for about 50 runs, so a pretty mediocre target of 236.
Oz playing with a bit of a regenerated line-up - Short, Renshaw, Connolly, Owen, Ellis.
India has Rohit and Virat batting 134/1 and looking in control.
-
A couple of thoughts.....
No surprises with the Australians at the top of the heap. Look at Gilchrists win percentage !!!!! I am surprised Lyon made it though.
The Poms who got in did it more out of longevity than sheer brilliance.
No Tendulkar or Dravid really surprises me given their excellence and longevity.
No Lara less so as his team was often poor.
I can't find a list of most wins for NZ, I suspect KW and Taylor are at the top.
-
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
A couple of thoughts.....
No surprises with the Australians at the top of the heap. Look at Gilchrists win percentage !!!!! I am surprised Lyon made it though.
The Poms who got in did it more out of longevity than sheer brilliance.
No Tendulkar or Dravid really surprises me given their excellence and longevity.
No Lara less so as his team was often poor.
I can't find a list of most wins for NZ, I suspect KW and Taylor are at the top.
What are you talking about, googles A1 has that question answered right here…
-
@Virgil said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
A couple of thoughts.....
No surprises with the Australians at the top of the heap. Look at Gilchrists win percentage !!!!! I am surprised Lyon made it though.
The Poms who got in did it more out of longevity than sheer brilliance.
No Tendulkar or Dravid really surprises me given their excellence and longevity.
No Lara less so as his team was often poor.
I can't find a list of most wins for NZ, I suspect KW and Taylor are at the top.
What are you talking about, googles A1 has that question answered right here…
Brilliant.
-
@Virgil turns out I was wrong about KW and Rossco, they're in a three way tie for second most wins with another player.....
Our greatest player ever only managed 22 wins in 86 tests which REALLY surprised me.
Care to guess who is first ? ( or cheat and Google it which is surprisingly hard to do )
-
-
