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?
-
@Snowy Malinga?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Chris Cairns was over 6ft...know he is a polarising figure.
-
@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.
@MN5 ha, I was looking at the example wrong...thinking of tall bowlers, not the short ones.
-
Who was that geezer that played for England that had no neck. He was a short quick, wasn't he?
-
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.
@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.
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. -
Who was that geezer that played for England that had no neck. He was a short quick, wasn't he?
-
I would consider any fast bowler under 1.83 m to be "short" by today's cricket standards. Wagner falls into that category too.
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.
-
@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.
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.@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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
@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.
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.
-
-
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.
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.
-
-
