• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

Fit at 41

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Fitness Forum
346 Posts 18 Posters 7.4k Views
Fit at 41
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • PaekakboyzP Offline
    PaekakboyzP Offline
    Paekakboyz
    replied to Snowy on last edited by
    #294

    @Snowy Malinga?

    SnowyS 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • SnowyS Offline
    SnowyS Offline
    Snowy
    replied to MN5 on last edited by
    #295

    @MN5 said in Fit at 41:

    @Snowy said in Fit at 41:

    @MN5 said in Fit at 41:

    That is very true. Who are great test batsman who are tall blokes ?

    Try naming the good under-tall bowlers as well. Quicks in particular.

    I have Danny Morrison (and not much else).

    We said good. Danny doesn’t qualify

    Actually you said "great". Thought that it would get mentioned - but I had nothing. So a liberal interpretation of "good".

    Average height of a Kiwi male is still only 1.78 (and we are considered tall by world standards). Steyn is 1.79 apparently and Marshal was 1.8 so not short.

    I am very suspicious of Danny Morrison being 1.88 which rules him out too (regardless of how good he was).

    So fast bowlers under 1.78?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • SnowyS Offline
    SnowyS Offline
    Snowy
    replied to Paekakboyz on last edited by
    #296

    @Paekakboyz said in Fit at 41:

    @Snowy Malinga?

    Nice. We have one. 1.73 if you believe the internet.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • MN5M Online
    MN5M Online
    MN5
    replied to MN5 on last edited by
    #297

    @MN5 said in Fit at 41:

    @Snowy said in Fit at 41:

    @MN5 said in Fit at 41:

    That is very true. Who are great test batsman who are tall blokes ?

    Try naming the good under-tall bowlers as well. Quicks in particular.

    I have Danny Morrison (and not much else).

    We said good. Danny doesn’t qualify

    I’m just having ya on. I loved DK in the day. Such a good trier.

    @Bones will wake up tomorrow and get excited about all his replies and then realise it’s a complete hijack about how tall cricketers are.

    Classic ferning everyone.

    SnowyS 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    wrote on last edited by
    #298

    Chris Cairns was over 6ft...know he is a polarising figure.

    MN5M 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • SnowyS Offline
    SnowyS Offline
    Snowy
    replied to MN5 on last edited by
    #299

    @MN5 said in Fit at 41:

    I’m just having ya on. I loved DK in the day. Such a good trier.

    Yeah I got that, still in the good category, not great.

    He was also about all we had for a while there.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • MN5M Online
    MN5M Online
    MN5
    replied to taniwharugby on last edited by
    #300

    @taniwharugby said in Fit at 41:

    Chris Cairns was over 6ft...know he is a polarising figure.

    Very good bowler. Good batsman. This confirms our theory.

    taniwharugbyT 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • HoorooH Do not disturb
    HoorooH Do not disturb
    Hooroo
    wrote on last edited by
    #301

    Who was that geezer that played for England that had no neck. He was a short quick, wasn't he?

    BovidaeB 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    replied to MN5 on last edited by
    #302

    @MN5 ha, I was looking at the example wrong...thinking of tall bowlers, not the short ones.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • BovidaeB Offline
    BovidaeB Offline
    Bovidae
    replied to Hooroo on last edited by Bovidae
    #303

    I would consider any fast bowler under 1.83 m to be "short" by today's cricket standards. Wagner falls into that category too.

    SnowyS 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • SnowyS Offline
    SnowyS Offline
    Snowy
    replied to MN5 on last edited by
    #304

    @MN5 said in Fit at 41:

    @Bones will wake up tomorrow and get excited about all his replies and then realise it’s a complete hijack about how tall cricketers are.

    1d6f8504-bbba-4c34-a7d9-553d847d35d8-image.png

    More likely to be Stargazer than Honey as thread diversion monitor actually.

    In a vague attempt to right this. International cricketers over the age of 41?
    Clive Lloyd made it to 40 I think.

    MN5M 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • BovidaeB Offline
    BovidaeB Offline
    Bovidae
    replied to Hooroo on last edited by
    #305

    @Hooroo said in Fit at 41:

    Who was that geezer that played for England that had no neck. He was a short quick, wasn't he?

    Gladstone Small. Google says 5'11".

    HoorooH 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • SnowyS Offline
    SnowyS Offline
    Snowy
    replied to Bovidae on last edited by
    #306

    @Bovidae said in Fit at 41:

    I would consider any fast bowler under 1.83 m to be "short" by today's cricket standards. Wagner falls into that category too.

    Any fast bowler under 1.90 could even be considered short by todays standards really (all the Aussies are well over, even Southee is 1.93) but tall in the general populace, which is the point. How many under 1.79? Even historically.

    Wags is 1.83 so still taller than most Kiwi men. Even Gladstone at 5'11 is over 1.80.

    BovidaeB 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • MN5M Online
    MN5M Online
    MN5
    replied to Snowy on last edited by
    #307

    @Snowy said in Fit at 41:

    @MN5 said in Fit at 41:

    @Bones will wake up tomorrow and get excited about all his replies and then realise it’s a complete hijack about how tall cricketers are.

    1d6f8504-bbba-4c34-a7d9-553d847d35d8-image.png

    More likely to be Stargazer than Honey as thread diversion monitor actually.

    In a vague attempt to right this. International cricketers over the age of 41?
    Clive Lloyd made it to 40 I think.

    WG Grace and Jack Hobbs pretty much played til they keeled over and died I think. Don Bradman played his last test innings at 39 ( turned 40 a week later ).

    Dunno if any of you know but he got out for a duck in his last dig, what a shit player. No way an Indian Batsman would do that.

    SnowyS 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • BovidaeB Offline
    BovidaeB Offline
    Bovidae
    replied to Snowy on last edited by Bovidae
    #308

    @Snowy said in Fit at 41:

    @Bovidae said in Fit at 41:

    I would consider any fast bowler under 1.83 m to be "short" by today's cricket standards. Wagner falls into that category too.

    Any fast bowler under 1.90 could even be considered short by todays standards really (all the Aussies are well over, even Southee is 1.93) but tall in the general populace, which is the point. How many under 1.79? Even historically.

    If that's your standard, Fred Trueman. Listed at 1.78 m. But he would have been tall for his era.

    SnowyS 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • SnowyS Offline
    SnowyS Offline
    Snowy
    replied to MN5 on last edited by
    #309

    @MN5 said in Fit at 41:

    Dunno if any of you know but he got out for a duck in his last dig, what a shit player. No way an Indian Batsman would do that.

    You Bobs or Vegene?

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • HoorooH Do not disturb
    HoorooH Do not disturb
    Hooroo
    replied to Bovidae on last edited by
    #310

    @Bovidae said in Fit at 41:

    @Hooroo said in Fit at 41:

    Who was that geezer that played for England that had no neck. He was a short quick, wasn't he?

    Gladstone Small. Google says 5'11".

    Midget! 🙂

    MN5M 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • SnowyS Offline
    SnowyS Offline
    Snowy
    replied to Bovidae on last edited by
    #311

    @Bovidae said in Fit at 41:

    @Snowy said in Fit at 41:

    @Bovidae said in Fit at 41:

    I would consider any fast bowler under 1.83 m to be "short" by today's cricket standards. Wagner falls into that category too.

    Any fast bowler under 1.90 could even be considered short by todays standards really (all the Aussies are well over, even Southee is 1.93) but tall in the general populace, which is the point. How many under 1.79? Even historically.

    If that's your standard, Fred Trueman. Listed at 1.78 m. But he would have been tall for his era.

    Nice, so we have one (albeit from 50 to 60 years ago). Average height has increased by about an inch in the last 50 years so certainly not a tall guy even then.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • MN5M Online
    MN5M Online
    MN5
    wrote on last edited by
    #312

    WG Grace looked big and tall and imposing with the kind of beard a craft beer enthusiast would cream his pants over but was he in fact a short man by modern standards ?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • MN5M Online
    MN5M Online
    MN5
    replied to Hooroo on last edited by
    #313

    @Hooroo said in Fit at 41:

    @Bovidae said in Fit at 41:

    @Hooroo said in Fit at 41:

    Who was that geezer that played for England that had no neck. He was a short quick, wasn't he?

    Gladstone Small. Google says 5'11".

    Midget! 🙂

    As is anyone under 1.90cm

    HoorooH 1 Reply Last reply
    0

Fit at 41
Fitness Forum
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.