The Ashes
-
Take out Bodyline and I bet Bradmans Ashes average would be closer to his test average. I think he "only" averaged 50 in that series.
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Ashes:
Take out Bodyline and I bet Bradmans Ashes average would be closer to his test average. I think he "only" averaged 50 in that series.
He really was quite shit then. That Indian above is correct. Why did they keep picking him?
Honestly, if you can't maintain an average of 99 when people are hurling a cricket ball at your body with fuck all protection...hardly an Aussie battler.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Ashes:
Take out Bodyline and I bet Bradmans Ashes average would be closer to his test average. I think he "only" averaged 50 in that series.
He really was quite shit then. That Indian above is correct. Why did they keep picking him?
Honestly, if you can't maintain an average of 99 when people are hurling a cricket ball at your body with fuck all protection...hardly an Aussie battler.
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Ashes:
Take out Bodyline and I bet Bradmans Ashes average would be closer to his test average. I think he "only" averaged 50 in that series.
He really was quite shit then. That Indian above is correct. Why did they keep picking him?
Honestly, if you can't maintain an average of 99 when people are hurling a cricket ball at your body with fuck all protection...hardly an Aussie battler.
The funny thing is that the Indians genuinely believe some of their guys are better.
Not only that their nation has never produced a single world class fast bowler
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Ashes:
Take out Bodyline and I bet Bradmans Ashes average would be closer to his test average. I think he "only" averaged 50 in that series.
He really was quite shit then. That Indian above is correct. Why did they keep picking him?
Honestly, if you can't maintain an average of 99 when people are hurling a cricket ball at your body with fuck all protection...hardly an Aussie battler.
The funny thing is that the Indians genuinely believe some of their guys are better.
Not only that their nation has never produced a single world class fast bowler
-
@MN5 434 test wickets at under 30 when you've had to play 119 tests at home isn't World Class? averaging 24.5 in Oz
You have a tough definition of world class?
-
@MN5 434 test wickets at under 30 when you've had to play 119 tests at home isn't World Class? averaging 24.5 in Oz
You have a tough definition of world class?
Kapil wasn't up there with the absolute best in my opinion
Maybe not but was world class. Especially considering he probably had to do most of that in India
-
@MN5 434 test wickets at under 30 when you've had to play 119 tests at home isn't World Class? averaging 24.5 in Oz
You have a tough definition of world class?
Kapil wasn't up there with the absolute best in my opinion
Maybe not but was world class. Especially considering he probably had to do most of that in India
Especially considering he probably had to do most of that in India
I think that is what @dogmeat is referring to with the 119 tests at home comment.
I'm going with "India have produced a single world class fast bowler". Struggling to think of others that are right up there.
-
Especially considering he probably had to do most of that in India
I think that is what @dogmeat is referring to with the 119 tests at home comment.
I'm going with "India have produced a single world class fast bowler". Struggling to think of others that are right up there.
-
I'm going with "India have produced a single world class fast bowler". Struggling to think of others that are right up there.
By that standard, we've produced:
Hadlee
Bond (truncated)
...Yes. 100% more than India.
I'll leave it to you to remind the Indians of that.
-
-
Beefy makes the team based on one incredible ashes. How did he go in others?
( again, I can't access that info on a smartphone )
He was always a bit hit and miss with the bat - but with the ball there were 2 phases to his career. A superb, fast medium swing bowler until his back went and then a chubby trundler afterwards who could still bowl the odd jaffa (and had the mentality that he was still a hostile quick)
After that 1981 series he had 87 wickets against Australia at 22.67. From then on it was 61 wickets at 34.77.
@kiwipie The thing about Beefy was less about his overall stats and more what he did to change the course of a match in a particular spell, be it bowling or batting. He had some pretty dreary spells bowling and then out of nowhere came a devastating spell that just turned things on their head. His batting was also a bit hit and miss but there were quite a few times he was asked to go out there and swing hard. Looks great for a short while but buggers up your stats.
All rounders are harder to qualify IMO. Looking at the stats, you'd have to say Kallis is the man, but how many of those big innings were done at a pace that suited the match. Sobers stats do not compare that well with Kallis but I'd have him in the team every day over the Saffer - and over Botham too.
-
@kiwipie The thing about Beefy was less about his overall stats and more what he did to change the course of a match in a particular spell, be it bowling or batting. He had some pretty dreary spells bowling and then out of nowhere came a devastating spell that just turned things on their head. His batting was also a bit hit and miss but there were quite a few times he was asked to go out there and swing hard. Looks great for a short while but buggers up your stats.
All rounders are harder to qualify IMO. Looking at the stats, you'd have to say Kallis is the man, but how many of those big innings were done at a pace that suited the match. Sobers stats do not compare that well with Kallis but I'd have him in the team every day over the Saffer - and over Botham too.
@catogrande said in The Ashes:
@kiwipie The thing about Beefy was less about his overall stats and more what he did to change the course of a match in a particular spell, be it bowling or batting. He had some pretty dreary spells bowling and then out of nowhere came a devastating spell that just turned things on their head. His batting was also a bit hit and miss but there were quite a few times he was asked to go out there and swing hard. Looks great for a short while but buggers up your stats.
All rounders are harder to qualify IMO. Looking at the stats, you'd have to say Kallis is the man, but how many of those big innings were done at a pace that suited the match. Sobers stats do not compare that well with Kallis but I'd have him in the team every day over the Saffer - and over Botham too.
How do Sobers stats not compare with Kallis? They're extremely similar.
-
@catogrande said in The Ashes:
@kiwipie The thing about Beefy was less about his overall stats and more what he did to change the course of a match in a particular spell, be it bowling or batting. He had some pretty dreary spells bowling and then out of nowhere came a devastating spell that just turned things on their head. His batting was also a bit hit and miss but there were quite a few times he was asked to go out there and swing hard. Looks great for a short while but buggers up your stats.
All rounders are harder to qualify IMO. Looking at the stats, you'd have to say Kallis is the man, but how many of those big innings were done at a pace that suited the match. Sobers stats do not compare that well with Kallis but I'd have him in the team every day over the Saffer - and over Botham too.
How do Sobers stats not compare with Kallis? They're extremely similar.
@mn5 More the longevity of Kallis and the sheer number of tons the bloke got. More test tons than most regular batsmen. Anyway, my point being (in relation to Botham's effectiveness), who had the most profound effect of the games played? A bit like Gilchrist, his stats don't bear comparison with Kallis but bloody hell he turned some matches for Aus.
-
@mn5 More the longevity of Kallis and the sheer number of tons the bloke got. More test tons than most regular batsmen. Anyway, my point being (in relation to Botham's effectiveness), who had the most profound effect of the games played? A bit like Gilchrist, his stats don't bear comparison with Kallis but bloody hell he turned some matches for Aus.
@catogrande said in The Ashes:
@mn5 More the longevity of Kallis and the sheer number of tons the bloke got. More test tons than most regular batsmen. Anyway, my point being (in relation to Botham's effectiveness), who had the most profound effect of the games played? A bit like Gilchrist, his stats don't bear comparison with Kallis but bloody hell he turned some matches for Aus.
I think Kalliss stats surpass his aura if that makes sense but fuck me he was one of the very best batsmen of his generation with the added bonus of being about as good as Chris Martin with the ball!
-
England's attack looking a bit pop-gun at the moment. Bowling tidily, keeping the scoring rate down but basically just waiting for a batsman error. The contrast with Starc and Hazelwood last night is noticeable. A lot of the commentators have been commenting that England are bowling too short and I agree - their tactic with Warner for example seems to be tying him down, a cover sweeper if they pitch a bit too short and hope he gets frustrated. In itself that isn't a bad tactic but only after you've tried to get him out with the new ball - but they never pitched the ball up enough to make him drive and find an edge.
As was noted, Starc's first delivery of the English innings (his loosener) was immediately the fastest ball of the match.
-
Well Marsh has guaranteed himself another 3 years of selection with that 100
-
Trash. 143/7 in Adelaide? fucking hopeless. This should be all over by tomorrow.
