Cricket World Cup Thread
Posted 10 September 2004 - 10:53 PM
Anyway, even if the USA flop magnificently, you can still back the ozzies.
You know, I was just reading about wierd matches. In the 1800's they used to play teams comprising of men with only 1 arm, against men with only 1 leg. War veterens mostly. It would be unthinkable now! If you desperately need to know the 1 legged men usually won. :eek:
Posted 13 September 2004 - 11:46 PM
Great batsman sure. But one among many.
But to compare to modern players is just darn silly.
Lets put it into perspective. For example:
How many teams did he play against? How many other players today have awesome records against one team yet were average to poor when stats are added from the rest?
Posted 14 September 2004 - 12:47 AM
He played against 4 countries I think. England, the West Indies, India and South Africa. Naturally most of his tests were played against England, and of course, England were the strongest opponent he played against.
Now against them he averaged 89.79 off 63 innings. 12 50's. 10 centuries. 6 double centuries and 2 triple centuries. A record to be very proud of, and, if he could do this to the strongest team around, Australia not withstanding, what did he do against the other touring teams?
Well, against the relatively weak West Indies he played 6 innings and came out with an average of 74.50 with 1 century and one double ton. So technically the matches he played against the WIndies drag his average down slightly.
However against a weak South Africa, he played in 5 innings and averaged just over 200 with 2 tons and 2 double tons including the 299*.
And against India he played 6 innings averaging over 178 with 1 50, 3 tons and 1 double ton.
In my view, averaging almost 90 against fairly strong England attacks is proof enough of his skill, however, if you think his overall average was greatly dragged up by the Africans and Indians, then an average of 79.35 can be calculated discluding the runs made against South Africa and India. And an average of almost 80 is still bloody good. Substantially more than anyone else with a long career.
As to comparing with modern players, well how can you? Someone once suggested that to compare a player in the '20s or before, with one today you may have to double his average, but it cannot be done with any degree of precision. Perhaps one indication would be that he still averaged well over 50 when faced with Larwood, Voce and bodyline. Something I doubt that many modern players could do, but again it can't be proven.
For myself, I think the stats are proof enough that 'Braddles' was the best batsman who ever lived. Probably his only flaw was a small tendancy to struggle on shoddy pitches but that affects most batsmen.
Posted 19 September 2004 - 05:34 PM
Imagine being trapped in a glasshouse with thousands of hornets buzzing angrily around you. Multiply that sound by several hundred decibels and the result approaches the colossal continuous hooting and honking at Edgbaston when India took on Pakistan with a semifinal berth at stake in the ICC Champions Trophy.
When did you last see 20,000 people watch a cricket match and a full 'ouse at Edgbaston?
The Windies blanked the Springboks too.:confused:
Posted 19 September 2004 - 10:55 PM
"One gent had a T-shirt stitched from a half each of Pakistan's green and India's blue"
So even handed. Preparing for any eventuality.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users