Asim Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 bad joke better luck next time hmmm so u start watching cricket quite recently?
rkt.india Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 McGrath - Hit the deck dependable skillful bowler. Ambrose - Pace, bounce, accuracy in one word a Nightmare. Styen - Fast, can swing the ball away at pace, deadly late swing, almost a complete fast bowler. The one to have Best Strike rate in an era of high test batting averages where Samarveera and Younis Khan average more than 50 and has done well in most conditions. So far my Team Gavaskar Hayden Dravid Tendulkar Lara Steve Waugh (Captain) Gilchrist Shane Warne Ambrose Steyn McGrath
Marut Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I think Sydney Barnes in that list is ok - I don't rate most of the pre Sobers era very highly, but some of them do stand out. Bradman, Barnes, O'Reilly etc would make many all time lists. Andy Roberts should have been in there, along with Lillee was the most menacing fast bowler of the 70s. The WI quicks need a separate list, otherwise we have the big option of having four WI quicks in the World XI because they were all that good. Even WI quicks who did not play too much test cricket( like Wayne Daniel the "Diamond" or Sylvester Clarke) were good enough to make it into any top test side( except the WI side) across all eras.
Sehwag1830 Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I don't get Akram love on this forum. He was never ranked no.1 in his entire test career. He didn't even touch 850 rating points. He neither even has 4 WPM in test career. So on what basis people are selecting him ? Youtube videos.
rkt.india Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I think Sydney Barnes in that list is ok - I don't rate most of the pre Sobers era very highly, but some of them do stand out. Bradman, Barnes, O'Reilly etc would make many all time lists. Andy Roberts should have been in there, along with Lillee was the most menacing fast bowler of the 70s. The WI quicks need a separate list, otherwise we have the big option of having four WI quicks in the World XI because they were all that good. Even WI quicks who did not play too much test cricket( like Wayne Daniel the "Diamond" or Sylvester Clarke) were good enough to make it into any top test side( except the WI side) across all eras. Found a video of Clark, looking nothing special here. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA1L_cDJEEI]SYLVESTER CLARKE - Forgotten West Indies fast bowler..... - YouTube[/ame]
Marut Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I don't get Akram love on this forum. He was never ranked no.1 in his entire test career. He didn't even touch 850 rating points. He neither even has 4 WPM in test career. So on what basis people are selecting him ? Youtube videos. Yep. He was very talented but underacheived. I would usually have Imran and Waqar above Akram.
Marut Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Found a video of Clark, looking nothing special here. Viv Richards said that Clarke was one bowler against whom he was most uncomfortable, he was easilly one of the fastest bowlers in the WI side. Garry Sobers said that Clarke was "the quickest and most hostile fast bowler now playing in world cricket". ( during the 80s). His averages were not particularly impressive during his very short test career, but batsmen genuinely feared him. He was dropped from the WI side ( after being selected ahead of Holding for the next English tour) following a controversy in Pakistan but could never return back into the test side, boasting of Marshall, Garner, Holding and Croft. Wayne and Syslvester would have walked into nearly every test side that has played cricket, except the WI side of the 80s - 80s were bad time for top bowlers in the WI, but these bowlers had magnificient career in county and first class cricket.
Crookbond Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I don't get Akram love on this forum. He was never ranked no.1 in his entire test career. He didn't even touch 850 rating points. He neither even has 4 WPM in test career. So on what basis people are selecting him ? Youtube videos. Sehwag - love, ok? :winky:
rkt.india Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Viv Richards said that Clarke was one bowler against whom he was most uncomfortable' date=' he was easilly one of the fastest bowlers in the WI side. Garry Sobers said that Clarke was "the quickest and most hostile fast bowler now playing in world cricket". ( during the 80s). His averages were not particularly impressive during his very short test career, but batsmen genuinely feared him. He was dropped from the WI side ( after being selected ahead of Holding for the next English tour) following a controversy in Pakistan but could never return back into the test side, boasting of Marshall, Garner, Holding and Croft. Wayne and Syslvester would have walked into nearly every test side that has played cricket, except the WI side of the 80s - 80s were bad time for top bowlers in the WI, but these bowlers had magnificient career in county and first class cricket.[/quote'] Desmond Haynes ne to yaha tak kaha ke Andy Roberts bowled over 100 mph and Clark was fastest then he must be 105 mph. I dont believe what anyone says. Look at the video and decide. Listen the commentary who says "not quite has the pace of the other West Indian fast bowlers."
Jimmy Cliff Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Marshall and Barnes. Team so far: Gavaskar Hobbs Bradman Richards Chappell Sobers Gilchrist Imran Marshall Barnes
Crookbond Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Desmond Haynes ne to yaha tak kaha ke Andy Roberts bowled over 100 mph and Clark was fastest then he must be 105 mph. I dont believe what anyone says. Look at the video and decide. Listen the commentary who says "not quite has the pace of the other West Indian fast bowlers." And when people do THIS it makes me doubt their credibility. Right after that statement Benaud says - "He's bowled slower this match than I've ever seen him" and later goes on to say "He's always been appreciatively quicker than I've seen here." Also, good job in over riding statements of great cricketers on a bowler why watching a 3:36 highlights package. :hatsoff:
The Outsider Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 :hysterical: below is a list of truly great fast bowlers that were excluded from being considered because of the itch to somehow get in the likes of Kapil and your fixation with cricketers from old era's based on their ratings you read in the library. Holding Garner Roberts Walsh Bishop Waqar These are genuine quicks who are way better than most of the bowling all rounders except for one or two. It seems your lack of understanding and logic is as strong as ever: 1. I did not even vote for Kapil in the bowling all rounder thread. 2. The very post you've quoted here clearly says that you can choose 3 fast bowlers or 2 fast bowlers and a bowling all rounder. 3. Which bowler in the above list was better than Imran and Hadlee? 4. Now the punchline - let's say I did not have a bowling all rounder thread and also ignore Barnes, Lindwall, and Trueman because they are from the old era. Now, come up with a way to include the remaining 7 bowlers in this poll - Marshall, McGrath, Akram, Ambrose, Donald, Lillee, and Steyn plus Imran, Hadlee, and Pollock plus the above 6 bowlers totaling 16 bowlers using the software which allows a maximum of 10 choices per poll option. Please give us all a live demonstration on how you are going to achieve this by opening a new thread. And here is a list of pretty darn good bowlers that are better than some of those in your list Shoaib Gillespie Anderson Croft Ntini Bob Willis But yeah continue the comedy show and do let us know where this match will be played and what you will do if the pitch calls for 2 spinners to be played. Once you've done the above, edit the poll and try to add in the above 6 choices to your poll and thread which allows a maximum of 10 options. I want to see a poll with the above 22 names on this forum within the next 24 hours. Thanks.
Lurker Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 WTF! Who thinks Anderson was better than any.of the nominations? Oh now I get it, must be Anderson Cummins he was thinking of.
The Outsider Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 WTF! Who thinks Anderson was better than any.of the nominations? He's owned Bhagwaan over the years, so obviously he is better than Bhagwaan. Why do you think Srinath and Zaheer are missing - did they dismiss Bhagwaan even once in an "international" match?
Lurker Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 He's owned Bhagwaan over the years' date=' so obviously he is better than Bhagwaan. Why do you think Srinath and Zaheer are missing - did they dismiss Bhagwaan even once in an "international" match?[/quote'] Yeah I know, but really how weird can an argument get. Lets look at the names again, Shoaib Gillespie Anderson Croft Ntini Bob Willis I would bet NONE of these would make to their respective National XI, let alone being considered for a world XI. Shoaib for pakistan XI? no. It is Imran, Akram, Waqar and if there is room for more go with Fazal Mehmood. Gillespie for Australia? You drunk? Anderson for England? Ahead of Trueman, Tyson, Barnes, Snow, Bedser...heck even Darren Gough??? Croft for West Indies? hahahahaahahahahaha Ntini for SA? Possibly maybe but only as a candidate. Cant see him ahead of Shaun and Peter Pollock, Donald, Mike Procter, Steyn. Willis. Rinse and repeat for Anderson. Jeez, its one thing to disagree, completely different to pull out names from your rear end...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now