Viv Richards not Don Bradman is the best batsman ever in cricket history - Ian Botham
Dr Rowland
I regard him as the best player who ever played cricket. Bradman got all the
records, but I wonder if Bradman could have adjusted to 20-, 40-, 50-over
cricket as well as Test matches? When you look at footage from the 1930s,
there's no science about the field placings. They were the same when the
batsman arrived at the crease as they were when he'd scored 300. Obviously
Bradman was an exceptional talent, but I find it hard to comprehend anyone
ever being better than Viv."
Unsurprisingly, he also considers the West Indies under Clive Lloyd to have
been the Test team par excellence. "People talk about the [1948 Australian]
Invincibles. Baloney! They would have been blown away by that lot. And Clive
Lloyd made them the West Indies, you know. He brought all those guys from
different islands together, in a way that had never been done before, and
hasn't been done properly since."
John Hall
Dr Rowland <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> writes:
>http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article3289163.ece
>
>I regard him as the best player who ever played cricket.
Having followed the link, I discovered that "I" is Ian Botham. I don't
regard Botham as being very knowledgeable about the history of the game,
and Richards was a great mate of his, so it won't change my own view
that Bradman is well ahead of Richards.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones
Will_S
"Dr Rowland" <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fl6b9f$4gt$1...@aioe.org...
across eras its hard to compare averages so lets try this :
1/ take the average of all the batsmen that the Don played against and then
compare that to Bradman as a percentage
2/ to the same for Richards
3/ Now compare the pecentages
Dr Rowland
"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l2m66UKW...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
But what Ian Botham said about the field placings and tactics in the 30s
when Bradman played is worth debating.
Also his second comment about Clive Lloyds team capable of
blowing away the 1948 Austrailan invincibles.
Mango
I agree the 1948 Australian team is over rated. They played against an
England recovering from war. If they were that exceptional they would have
carried on with the 1948 form. Instead, they were back in the pack in just
a couple of years.
I've never had the opportunity to see Bradman bat, but his record speaks for
itself. I have seen plenty of Viv Richards and there are other more modern
day players just as good (Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting just to name three).
Viv was a great player, but he didn't dominate as Bradman did.
>
>
dougie
> I find it hard to comprehend anyone ever being better than Viv."
This is what it comes down to. He just doesn't know.
I might find it hard to comprehend that Bill O'Reilly or any other great
bowler could be better than Warne. That doesn't mean they weren't.
I might find it hard to comprehend that Sobers could be better than Botham
even (I never saw Sobers) but that doesn't mean he wasn't.
Dr Rowland
"dougie" <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote in message
news:qLAdj.28980$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>
>> I find it hard to comprehend anyone ever being better than Viv."
>
> This is what it comes down to. He just doesn't know.
Ian Botham has seen Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting but he still thinks
Sir Viv is better than them.
> I might find it hard to comprehend that Bill O'Reilly or any other great
> bowler could be better than Warne. That doesn't mean they weren't.
>
> I might find it hard to comprehend that Sobers could be better than Botham
> even (I never saw Sobers) but that doesn't mean he wasn't.
Botham gave a couple of reasons of Bradman not playing 20, 40, 50 over
games and the fact that field placings were the same all through out the
match during Bradman's innings.
Will_S
"Mango" <Fake...@wherever.com> wrote in message
news:7FAdj.28976$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
And Australia didnt have anything to do with or suffered from War ?
dougie
>
> "dougie" <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote in message
> news:qLAdj.28980$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>>
>>> I find it hard to comprehend anyone ever being better than Viv."
>>
>> This is what it comes down to. He just doesn't know.
>
>
> Ian Botham has seen Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting but he still thinks
> Sir Viv is better than them.
None of whom he played against. He is guilty of inflating the worth of
Viv Richards because Richards caned Botham himself. It makes Botham feel
better. It heightens his ego to think "this guy Richards absolutely
flogged me, he made me look second rate, therefore Viv Richards must have
been the best batsman of all time".
It is an ego-boosting and preservation exercise on the part of Botham. It
has nothing to do with whether Viv Richards was actually as good as
Botham says. It is all about preserving Botham's opinion of Botham.
>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Bill O'Reilly or any other
>> great bowler could be better than Warne. That doesn't mean they
>> weren't.
>>
>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Sobers could be better than
>> Botham even (I never saw Sobers) but that doesn't mean he wasn't.
>
>
> Botham gave a couple of reasons of Bradman not playing 20, 40, 50 over
> games and the fact that field placings were the same all through out
> the match during Bradman's innings.
All fo which are irrelevant. Bradman played the crixcket that was
available to him at the time. He average almost 100 in tests and 95 in
1st class. iirc Richards didn't even average as high as Greg Chappell.
Will_S
>
> "dougie" <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote in message
> news:qLAdj.28980$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>>
>>> I find it hard to comprehend anyone ever being better than Viv."
>>
>> This is what it comes down to. He just doesn't know.
>
>
> Ian Botham has seen Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting but he still thinks
> Sir Viv is better than them.
And that opinion is not biased ?
>
>
>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Bill O'Reilly or any other great
>> bowler could be better than Warne. That doesn't mean they weren't.
>>
>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Sobers could be better than
>> Botham
>> even (I never saw Sobers) but that doesn't mean he wasn't.
>
>
> Botham gave a couple of reasons of Bradman not playing 20, 40, 50 over
> games and the fact that field placings were the same all through out the
> match during Bradman's innings.
And he didnt mention uncovered wickets . I would also suggest that Richards
had the advantage of better equipment
prabh...@hotmail.com
> "Dr Rowland" <DrRowland72remt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It might interest the jobless Dr.Rowland aka CretinLeague aka Yorker
to know that Botham called the Pakistanis cheats and first-rate ball
tamperers :)
Dr Rowland
> Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>
>>
>> "dougie" <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote in message
>> news:qLAdj.28980$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>>>
>>>> I find it hard to comprehend anyone ever being better than Viv."
>>>
>>> This is what it comes down to. He just doesn't know.
>>
>>
>> Ian Botham has seen Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting but he still thinks
>> Sir Viv is better than them.
>
> None of whom he played against.
Thats not a prerequisite to compare Viv with Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting.
>He is guilty of inflating the worth of
> Viv Richards because Richards caned Botham himself. It makes Botham feel
> better. It heightens his ego to think "this guy Richards absolutely
> flogged me, he made me look second rate, therefore Viv Richards must have
> been the best batsman of all time".
Arent you stretching it too far ?
Didnt Viv cane other bowlers in Botham's era ?
> It is an ego-boosting and preservation exercise on the part of Botham. It
> has nothing to do with whether Viv Richards was actually as good as
> Botham says. It is all about preserving Botham's opinion of Botham.
Do you think Shane Warne used the same tactic and praised Tendulkar
to preserve his opinion about himself ?
>>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Bill O'Reilly or any other
>>> great bowler could be better than Warne. That doesn't mean they
>>> weren't.
>>>
>>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Sobers could be better than
>>> Botham even (I never saw Sobers) but that doesn't mean he wasn't.
>>
>>
>> Botham gave a couple of reasons of Bradman not playing 20, 40, 50 over
>> games and the fact that field placings were the same all through out
>> the match during Bradman's innings.
>
> All fo which are irrelevant. Bradman played the crixcket that was
> available to him at the time. He average almost 100 in tests and 95 in
> 1st class. iirc Richards didn't even average as high as Greg Chappell.
Botham was giving a few reasons why Bradman had that 100 average.
You dont want to debate those reasons ?
But it was universally accepted Viv is a better batsman than Greg Chappell.
Dr Rowland
<prabh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73db70c2-ff1e-40de...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I post with only one name Dr Rowland. I can help you with your
delusions. Call my secretary and take appointments.
Botham and Imran Khan had sue each other iirc. Botham has
grudge against Pakistanis.
Botham might also be very interested in knowing ball tampering
and cheating has been going on in England cricket circles for 60
years and possibly more.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/d134dd2adf1a31f4
That makes both England and Pakistan ball tamperers and cheats.
Dr Rowland
"Will_S" <will...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4776df92$0$8437$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Dr Rowland" <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fl6lp9$473$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>> "dougie" <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote in message
>> news:qLAdj.28980$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>>>
>>>> I find it hard to comprehend anyone ever being better than Viv."
>>>
>>> This is what it comes down to. He just doesn't know.
>>
>>
>> Ian Botham has seen Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting but he still thinks
>> Sir Viv is better than them.
>
> And that opinion is not biased ?
May be, may be not.
>>
>>
>>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Bill O'Reilly or any other great
>>> bowler could be better than Warne. That doesn't mean they weren't.
>>>
>>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Sobers could be better than
>>> Botham
>>> even (I never saw Sobers) but that doesn't mean he wasn't.
>>
>>
>> Botham gave a couple of reasons of Bradman not playing 20, 40, 50 over
>> games and the fact that field placings were the same all through out the
>> match during Bradman's innings.
>
>
> And he didnt mention uncovered wickets . I would also suggest that
> Richards had the advantage of better equipment
If there was no innovation in field placings throughout the innings,
all the batsman had to do was put the bat to the ball and run.
I did not see Bradmans batting videos. My comment is based on Bothams
observation of field placings during Bradmans period.
dougie
> c
> "dougie" <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote in message
> news:XaBdj.28997$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>>
>>>
>>> "dougie" <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote in message
>>> news:qLAdj.28980$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>>>>
>>>>> I find it hard to comprehend anyone ever being better than Viv."
>>>>
>>>> This is what it comes down to. He just doesn't know.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Botham has seen Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting but he still thinks
>>> Sir Viv is better than them.
>>
>> None of whom he played against.
>
> Thats not a prerequisite to compare Viv with Lara, Tendulkar and
> Ponting.
>
>
>>He is guilty of inflating the worth of
>> Viv Richards because Richards caned Botham himself. It makes Botham
>> feel better. It heightens his ego to think "this guy Richards
>> absolutely flogged me, he made me look second rate, therefore Viv
>> Richards must have been the best batsman of all time".
>
>
> Arent you stretching it too far ?
No.
> Didnt Viv cane other bowlers in Botham's era ?
So did a number of other players.
>> It is an ego-boosting and preservation exercise on the part of
>> Botham. It has nothing to do with whether Viv Richards was actually
>> as good as Botham says. It is all about preserving Botham's opinion
>> of Botham.
>
> Do you think Shane Warne used the same tactic and praised Tendulkar
> to preserve his opinion about himself ?
There might be some of that. You won't find Shane Warne saying Tendulkar
was better than Bradman though, because he wouldn't have a clue. Nor does
Ian Botham have a clue whether Richards was better than Bradman. Botham
bowled to Richards. His views are coloured by that. No doubt Richards is
one of the greats, but better than Bradman? Botham wouldn't have a clue.
>>>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Bill O'Reilly or any other
>>>> great bowler could be better than Warne. That doesn't mean they
>>>> weren't.
>>>>
>>>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Sobers could be better than
>>>> Botham even (I never saw Sobers) but that doesn't mean he wasn't.
>>>
>>>
>>> Botham gave a couple of reasons of Bradman not playing 20, 40, 50
>>> over games and the fact that field placings were the same all
>>> through out the match during Bradman's innings.
>>
>> All fo which are irrelevant. Bradman played the crixcket that was
>> available to him at the time. He average almost 100 in tests and 95
>> in 1st class. iirc Richards didn't even average as high as Greg
>> Chappell.
>
> Botham was giving a few reasons why Bradman had that 100 average.
> You dont want to debate those reasons ?
No, it's been done before. What you have to do is compare Bradman to his
own contemporaries. His contemporaries played with similar field
placings, didn't have 20/20 or ODI either, but Bradman was streets ahead
of them. Richards wasn't streets ahead of his own contemporaries.
> But it was universally accepted Viv is a better batsman than Greg
> Chappell.
Actually, no it wasn't. It was universally accepted that Richards was
much better to watch. I would much rather watch Richards. Richards played
some amazing shots and hit the ball with great power. That doesn't mean
he was better. Just because you enjoyed watching him bat doesn't mean he
was a better batsman. I also though Mark Waugh was much better to watch
than Steve, but who was the better bat?
Ian Galbraith
> "Dr Rowland" <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fl6j2r$rol$1...@aioe.org...
[snip]
>> But what Ian Botham said about the field placings and tactics in the 30s
>> when Bradman played is worth debating.
>>
>> Also his second comment about Clive Lloyds team capable of
>> blowing away the 1948 Austrailan invincibles.
Botham is the idiot who thought because Murali can't fully straighten his
arm that he couldn't be called for chucking. Nuff said about his opinion on
anything.
> I agree the 1948 Australian team is over rated. They played against an
> England recovering from war. If they were that exceptional they would have
> carried on with the 1948 form. Instead, they were back in the pack in just
> a couple of years.
Er yeah because Bradman retired, he makes all the difference.
> I've never had the opportunity to see Bradman bat, but his record speaks for
> itself. I have seen plenty of Viv Richards and there are other more modern
> day players just as good (Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting just to name three).
> Viv was a great player, but he didn't dominate as Bradman did.
Yup.
--
"Intellect without humanity is not good enough...what the world is
suffering from at the present time is not so much an overabundance of
intellect as an insufficiency of humanity." - Ashley Montagu
Dr Rowland
"Ian Galbraith" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:q16dvptwthr9.11gpp57z7oeo7$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:22:43 GMT, Mango wrote:
>
>> "Dr Rowland" <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fl6j2r$rol$1...@aioe.org...
> [snip]
>
>>> But what Ian Botham said about the field placings and tactics in the 30s
>>> when Bradman played is worth debating.
>>>
>>> Also his second comment about Clive Lloyds team capable of
>>> blowing away the 1948 Austrailan invincibles.
>
> Botham is the idiot who thought because Murali can't fully straighten his
> arm that he couldn't be called for chucking. Nuff said about his opinion
> on
> anything.
If memory serves me right Australian doctors and other experts examined
Murali thoroughly and concluded the same like Botham.
That makes the Aussie doctors and experts idiots too ?
Yorker
What doctor are you? You dabble in the remedies that apply solely to the
rectal areas. Partly because you excel at talking out of your rectum and
you enjoy the smell that permeates from it, not to mention the utter
satisfaction it does to your olfactory.
The same behaviour applies to Cuntleague, Madhav, Husband of...,and of
course the fatherless bastard.
Yours with everlasting anal effect,
Yorker.
Dr Rowland
> Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>
>> c
>> "dougie" <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote in message
>> news:XaBdj.28997$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "dougie" <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:qLAdj.28980$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>> Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it hard to comprehend anyone ever being better than Viv."
>>>>>
>>>>> This is what it comes down to. He just doesn't know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ian Botham has seen Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting but he still thinks
>>>> Sir Viv is better than them.
>>>
>>> None of whom he played against.
>>
>> Thats not a prerequisite to compare Viv with Lara, Tendulkar and
>> Ponting.
>>
>>
>>>He is guilty of inflating the worth of
>>> Viv Richards because Richards caned Botham himself. It makes Botham
>>> feel better. It heightens his ego to think "this guy Richards
>>> absolutely flogged me, he made me look second rate, therefore Viv
>>> Richards must have been the best batsman of all time".
>>
>>
>> Arent you stretching it too far ?
>
> No.
>
>> Didnt Viv cane other bowlers in Botham's era ?
>
> So did a number of other players.
Then you cannot argue that Botham chose Viv as the best batsman ever
because he mauled Botham.
>>> It is an ego-boosting and preservation exercise on the part of
>>> Botham. It has nothing to do with whether Viv Richards was actually
>>> as good as Botham says. It is all about preserving Botham's opinion
>>> of Botham.
>>
>> Do you think Shane Warne used the same tactic and praised Tendulkar
>> to preserve his opinion about himself ?
>
> There might be some of that. You won't find Shane Warne saying Tendulkar
> was better than Bradman though,
That is not relevant to the point being discussed.
Shane Warne is an Australian and he will never say Tendulkar is better
than Australian Don Bradman whom Australians consider an "untouchable" .
>because he wouldn't have a clue. Nor does
> Ian Botham have a clue whether Richards was better than Bradman. Botham
> bowled to Richards. His views are coloured by that. No doubt Richards is
> one of the greats, but better than Bradman? Botham wouldn't have a clue.
How can "you" have a clue that Bradman is better than Richards if
Shane Warne doesnt have a clue between Tendulkar and Bradman,
Botham doesnt have a clue between Richards and Bradman......
>>>>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Bill O'Reilly or any other
>>>>> great bowler could be better than Warne. That doesn't mean they
>>>>> weren't.
>>>>>
>>>>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Sobers could be better than
>>>>> Botham even (I never saw Sobers) but that doesn't mean he wasn't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Botham gave a couple of reasons of Bradman not playing 20, 40, 50
>>>> over games and the fact that field placings were the same all
>>>> through out the match during Bradman's innings.
>>>
>>> All fo which are irrelevant. Bradman played the crixcket that was
>>> available to him at the time. He average almost 100 in tests and 95
>>> in 1st class. iirc Richards didn't even average as high as Greg
>>> Chappell.
>>
>> Botham was giving a few reasons why Bradman had that 100 average.
>> You dont want to debate those reasons ?
>
> No, it's been done before. What you have to do is compare Bradman to his
> own contemporaries. His contemporaries played with similar field
> placings, didn't have 20/20 or ODI either, but Bradman was streets ahead
> of them. Richards wasn't streets ahead of his own contemporaries.
>
>> But it was universally accepted Viv is a better batsman than Greg
>> Chappell.
>
> Actually, no it wasn't. It was universally accepted that Richards was
> much better to watch. I would much rather watch Richards. Richards played
> some amazing shots and hit the ball with great power. That doesn't mean
> he was better.
Who were better batsmen than Viv in his era ?
>Just because you enjoyed watching him bat doesn't mean he
> was a better batsman.
Never said that.
>I also though Mark Waugh was much better to watch
> than Steve, but who was the better bat?
Mark Waugh for me and Steve Waugh when the team is in
dire situation.
Jellore
wrote:
I think what Ian should have said was "Viv was the best batsman I
played with" or "Viv was the best batsman I ever saw play". The only
meaningful way to compare players between the ages are the stats,
although even those as we know can be flawed.
Mango
"Ian Galbraith" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:q16dvptwthr9.11gpp57z7oeo7$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>> I agree the 1948 Australian team is over rated. They played against an
>> England recovering from war. If they were that exceptional they would
>> have
>> carried on with the 1948 form. Instead, they were back in the pack in
>> just
>> a couple of years.
>
> Er yeah because Bradman retired, he makes all the difference.
>
That's why I say the "team" was over rated. They generally played weak
opposition in 1948 and once Bradman retired the others didn't continue to
perform at the same level. The other members reputations were based on
Bradman's ability.
Jellore
How very wrong of you to say that: here is a short list of some of the
players who have dismissed: Harvey; Lindwall; Hassett and of course
Miller. There are more.
Will_S
innovation hmmm, let me see...... legside mmmmmmm bodyline
mmmmmm
plenty of innovation
>
Dr Rowland
"Jellore" <jel...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:e1ec0120-4613-4982...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
If Ian Botham thought Viv is the best batsman ever after watching 30s
videos of Don Bradman thats his prerogative. He is entitled to his opinion
just like I and you are.
Dr Rowland
Bodyline is just one innovation and probably in the later part of
Don Bradman's cricket career.
Husband of All FBI n NSA agents
"Yorker" <Yor...@Yorker.com> wrote in message news:fl6rkt$jof$1...@aioe.org...
FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATH Yorker Imposter,
Filth like you are born to amuse me. You already realized it in the
last 6 years. Why bore me with same shit every day ?
FBI or NSA INTELLECTUAL is an OXYMORON.
Forget all that, when are you gonna take up my challenge of
meeting me and having a go at each other with a .38 Caliber GLOCK ?
YOU KNOW and I KNOW, you will NEVER BE ABLE TO
IMPRESS ME with your UNI-DIMENSIONAL SKILLS. Why
WASTE YOUR TIME ?
No wonder women in your culture DUMP you since you LOW IQ
DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS are SO BORING.......
Women in your culture would RATHER LIVE ALONE than living
with WORTHLESS BORING DUMBCUNTS like you.....
You already know the two women I dated in the last couple of months
both had the SAME OPINION about men in your RACE and CULTURE....
And YOU also HEARD with your own ears that those two women
said to me that men in your RACE CAN'T MAKE THEM CUM......
Both women told me that the BEST SEX THEY EVER HAD was with
INDIANS and PAKISTANIS........Hahahahahaha.......
You know it for a FACT the latino woman I dated told me she had
had sex with 12 different men and the BEST SEX SHE EVER HAD
was with the INDIAN GUY whose name SHE GOT TATTOED
on her WRIST.
No wonder those two women DUMPED their Caucasian husbands
and are DESPERATE to MARRY INDIAN MEN.....
Your tiny white dicks can't make this white woman "sciencegirl" cum
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/c7a1e6b720fb50a0
What the fuck are you low life scum good for ?
You can't make white women cum, you cant make latino women cum, you
can't make chinese women cum..........
Email this white woman sciencegirl at yahoo.com and convince her
that your tiny white dicks can make her cum.......ROFLMAO......
Meet me anywhere, anytime of your choice.
We will go at each other with the SAME WEAPON...38 caliber Glock......
Are you game FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATH "Yorker Imposter' ?
Your PATHETIC ATTEMPTS to NEUTRALIZE my
EXPOSURE of YOU YESTERDAY with these normal
cricket comments today is MILDLY AMUSING at BEST.
I KNOW and YOU KNOW I wont be able to TRACE
your comments back to the REAL YOU even if I can
get an GUTSY ATTORNEY to FIGHT YOU FBI n NSA
PSYCHOPATHS.
But there is ONLY ONE REAL MAN in America that turned the
MOST POWERFUL ENTITIES on earth ie FBI n NSA into
COMPLETE IMPOTENTS that too PUBLICLY.
I can see the FRUSTRATION and DEPRESSION of all you FBI and
NSA PSYCHOPATHS and RACISTS being exposed to the world.
Nothing is gonna change your status of an FBI n NSA agent pussy.
Keep your undercover agent pussy ready so I can fuck you tonight.
Shall I remind the rest of the world how YOU FBI n NSA
PSYCHOPATHS ABUSE blacks as NIGGERS, browns as
SAND NIGGERS, Mexicans as MEXCREMENT and USA
as "JewNITED STATES OF AMERICA" ?
Shall I also remind the rest of the world how YOU FBI n NSA
PSYCHOPATHS and RACISTS LOVE HITLER and NAZIS
and HATE ISRAEL and JEWS ?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy/msg/238657d378a212ff?hl=en&
Your husband and
Husband of all FBI n NSA agents
To all the readers here,
I already told you these FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS HATE
JEWS, BLACKS, BROWNS and HISPANICS and now you
have the PROOF.
These FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS and RACISTS BLAMED
FLOURIDATION POISONING on JEWS TOO.....
Just read the subject title in this link.......
Flouridation a JEW SCHEME ?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism/msg/879cd0abaee2f263
But dont get too excited thinking that these EVIL FBI n NSA
PSYCHOPATHS wont TORTURE WHITE CHRISTIANS.
Some of the TORTURE VICTIMS are HIGHLY EDUCATED
WHITE CHRISTIANS namely Dr Robert Dunford, Mr Derrick
Robinson and Ms Susan Sayler for example. All of these WHITE
CHRISTIAN TORTURE VICTIMS live in USA.
I also know some WHITE CHRISTIAN TORTURE VICTIMS in
ENGLAND and other parts of EUROPE. Will post their names
LATER.....
You, your wife and kids will be SECRETLY EMBEDDED with
nanotechnology based SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY CHIPS and
PSYCHO-ELECTRONIC WEAPONS in the near future IF NOT already
even if YOU CONTINUALLY SUCK these FBI and NSA
PSYCHOPATHS DICKS like Rodney Ulyate, MacJoubert, John Winthrop,
Diggler, arahim etc.
Its ONLY a MATTER OF TIME before EVERY HUMAN BEING will
be FORCED to HAVE NANOTECHNOLOGY based SYNTHETIC
TELEPATHY chips and their PRIVATE THOUGHTS MONITORED
by FBI and NSA COMPUTERS which can READ and DECIPHER
in about 15 - 30 seconds.
FORGET FREEDOM OF SPEECH.......No body will have
FREEDOM OF "THOUGHT" any more just like I didnt for the
last 6 years.
MI-5, MI-6 are ALSO INVOLVED in these MIND CONTROL,
MIND MANIPULATION TORTURES and PSYCHO-ELECTRONIC
WEAPON ATTACKS for DECADES in England.
PLANET EARTH has ONLY ONE CHOICE.
TO SUPPORT ME to FIGHT FOR THE RIGHTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES
and FREEDOMS of NOT ONLY EVERY AMERICAN but also EVERY
HUMAN BEING ON THIS PLANET.
I am the LAST HOPE of HUMANITY TO LIVE with ANY DIGNITY and
SELF RESPECT and with FREEDOM and CIVIL LIBERTIES.
All the resident RACISTS alvey, will_s, Andrew Dunford, Phil, Paul Robson,
max.it, Mike Holmans, dechuka, Wog George, Rodney Hampson, Erchie will
SUPPORT ME if they have ANY INKLING of whats gonna happen to
them, their family, their children and grand children and EVERY HUMAN
in the NEAR FUTURE.
YES, ALL HUMAN BEINGS will be CONTROLLED and MONITORED by
FBI n NSA COMPUTERS.
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/cov_us.html
YOU fucking MORONS HAVE NO IDEA how much ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
these FBI and NSA PSYCHOPATHS have DEVELOPED SECRETLY for DECADES
and have been TORTURING INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS.
You will be COMPLETE IDIOTS and MORONS if YOU THINK YOU WILL BE
SPARED by these FBI, NSA, MI-5, MI-6 PSYCHOPATHS and SADISTS if YOU
SUCK THEIR DICKS PUBLICLY and PRETEND to LIKE and WORSHIP THEM.
Why do you LOW IQ MORONS think John Winthrop commented a completely
irrelevant word "cough" in this comment today, ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/19a182f2677b2d57
Because I coughed last night at home.for a few seconds and thought about the
reasons why I was coughing.
The word "cough" was a SECRET MESSAGE to me by these BLOOD THIRSTY
EVIL FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS and RACISTS.
In case if you still didnt get it, that was the ONLY COMMENT
from "John Winthrop" who NEVER posted on rsc before.
It is a COMMON PRACTICE for these FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS to
POST PRIVATE THOUGHTS of TORTURE VICTIMS on internet newsgroups
in the form of " words in comments" or "subject title" or "posters name" or
"their email id" This was REPORTED by MANY OTHER TORTURE VICTIMS
in AMERICA that INCLUDE WHITE CHRISTIANS who are VERY
INTELLIGENT with ADVANCED degrees like Masters and PHD in Physics,
Chemistry, Psychology, Electrical Engineering, Computers, Sociology, Math
and some of the victims are even DOCTORS.
Will_S
Rodney Ulyate
How ?
Mango
Fine players, but the Australian team did not dominate through the early
fifties with thoose players in the side. The reason was that there were
planty of players just as good in other teams. I doubt they would be good
enough to play for the current team (maybe with the exception of Lindwall).
Mike Holmans
Name them, then.
Half the 1948 side were relative mediocrities. Accepting that Ponting
is not the equal of Bradman, that they had no all-rounder to even
compare with Miller and that Lindwall was not McGrath's inferior, the
2001 side were all better than their equivalents in the 1948 side, in
many cases much better. In 1948, England's bowling consisted of Bedser
and, er, no-one. The next most successful bowler was Norman Yardley.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Holmans
<Rodney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Will_S" <will...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:47770b89$0$8430$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Dr Rowland" <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fl71kg$4m7$1...@aioe.org...
>>> Bodyline is just one innovation and probably in the later part of
>>> Don Bradman's cricket career.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wrong again
>
>
>How ?
Bodyline: 1932-33.
Bradman's career: 1928-1948.
What peculiar tortures do you have to inflict on the English language
to make "probably in the later part of [Bradman's] career" not wrong
as a description of bodyline?
Cheers,
Mike
Kevin_McHale
> > But it was universally accepted Viv is a better batsman than Greg
> > Chappell.
>
> Actually, no it wasn't. It was universally accepted that Richards was
> much better to watch. I would much rather watch Richards. Richards played
> some amazing shots and hit the ball with great power. That doesn't mean
> he was better.
Judging by comments made by Viv's contemporaries, he was (almost)
universally regarded as the best batsman by a fair margin. People
like DKL, Imran, Hadlee, Kapil, Akram (not really a contemporary, I
know) and of course Botham were almost in awe of Viv. As far as I'm
aware Marshall and Holding were the only two players who considered
someone (Rowe) other than Viv as the best of the 70s/80s.
Among the cricketers I've read a lot about, Viv, Bradman, DKL,
Lindwall, and Sobers were the rare few who were (almost) universally
regarded as the best of their respective eras.
Rodney Ulyate
[...]
> How ?
That wasn't me, folks.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Everybody knows how to raise children, except the people who have them."
P.J. O'Rourke
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
dougie
On his day I've got no doubt he was the best as well as being the best to
watch. On his day. Problem with Viv was he was so arrogant he didn't know
when to admit the conditions weren't right or the bowling was too good.
This is the same with Darren Lehmann. He could have been one of the
greats but he thought he was so good nobody could get him out and he
played some really dumb shots and got himself out because he thought he
was so good. Viv just didn't care what the conditions were or who he was
facing. The fact that he averaged 50+ with an attitude like that says he
was a great player. But he could have been better.
Kevin_McHale
oops, forgot to mention Hobbs and Barnes. Plus WG, 'though I haven't
read as much 'bout him.
Dave -Turner
If Bradman wasn't that good simply because of the era he was playing in then
WHY WEREN'T THERE MORE PLAYERS IN THE AUSSIE TEAM WITH SUCH STATISTICS ????
Why only him ?????
And yeah Viv Richards was awesome but what about say Tendulkar ?
Rodney Ulyate
As you well know, my proclivity for linguistic perversion knows no
bounds -- underestimate it at your peril --, but I'm going to have to
leave your query in the hands of the sad allonym that inspired it.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"The number of fumbles, misfields and grabs at thin air brought to mind
some England performances of the past [...] a team full of dobbers and
crap fielders? It has been said about every England touring team to
Australia in the past 15 years. It's nice to be able to return the
compliment."
Michael Atherton
Kevin_McHale
>
> - Show quoted text -
well, he was that good through '81 or so. I'd say he was on a
different and higher plane than people like Gavaskar and Chappell for
a 5/6 yr prd. His contemporaries, even those who continued to play
against the more fallible Viv of the mid to late 80s, still regarded
him as **clearly** the best.
Ian Galbraith
> "Ian Galbraith" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:q16dvptwthr9.11gpp57z7oeo7$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:22:43 GMT, Mango wrote:
>>
>>> "Dr Rowland" <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fl6j2r$rol$1...@aioe.org...
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> But what Ian Botham said about the field placings and tactics in the 30s
>>>> when Bradman played is worth debating.
>>>>
>>>> Also his second comment about Clive Lloyds team capable of
>>>> blowing away the 1948 Austrailan invincibles.
>>
>> Botham is the idiot who thought because Murali can't fully straighten his
>> arm that he couldn't be called for chucking. Nuff said about his opinion
>> on
>> anything.
>
>
> If memory serves me right Australian doctors and other experts examined
> Murali thoroughly and concluded the same like Botham.
>
> That makes the Aussie doctors and experts idiots too ?
You're not understanding, Botham didn't understand that it was the change
in angle of the elbow during the delivery that dictated whether something
was a throw or not, whether or not the elbow is fully straight at the
moment of delivery is irrelevant.
--
"We not run out of time. There is infinite time. You are finite, Zathras is
finite. This...... is wrong tool." - Zathras, Babylon5
Cicero
"Mango" <Fake...@wherever.com> wrote in message
news:7FAdj.28976$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...>> "John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:l2m66UKW...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>>> In article <fl6b9f$4gt$1...@aioe.org>,
>>> Dr Rowland <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article3289163.ece
>>>>
>>>>I regard him as the best player who ever played cricket.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Having followed the link, I discovered that "I" is Ian Botham. I don't
>>> regard Botham as being very knowledgeable about the history of the game,
>>> and Richards was a great mate of his, so it won't change my own view
>>> that Bradman is well ahead of Richards.
>>> --
>>> John Hall
>>> "Honest criticism is hard to take,
>>> particularly from a relative, a friend,
>>> an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But what Ian Botham said about the field placings and tactics in the 30s
>> when Bradman played is worth debating.
>>
>> Also his second comment about Clive Lloyds team capable of
>> blowing away the 1948 Austrailan invincibles.
>>
>
> England recovering from war. If they were that exceptional they would
> have carried on with the 1948 form. Instead, they were back in the pack
> in just a couple of years.
>
> three). Viv was a great player, but he didn't dominate as Bradman did.
I still rate Barry Richards better than his namesake. And Graeme Pollock may
have been better anyway ( I never saw him).
Thunnus Albacarus
news:13neeqv...@corp.supernews.com:
Botham's on drugs. ? Yeap Have to agree with that one.
As far as i can remember (or can research) Bradman is the only batsman that
forced a change in the game. Bodyline was developed to remove Bradman's
dominance.
I'm not sure this has occoured for any other batsman in history,
Bob Dubery
Dr Rowland wrote:
> http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article3289163.ece
>
> I regard him as the best player who ever played cricket. Bradman got all the
> records, but I wonder if Bradman could have adjusted to 20-, 40-, 50-over
> cricket as well as Test matches? When you look at footage from the 1930s,
> there's no science about the field placings. They were the same when the
> batsman arrived at the crease as they were when he'd scored 300. Obviously
> Bradman was an exceptional talent, but I find it hard to comprehend anyone
> ever being better than Viv."
Well the first thing to remember is that "I" is Botham. There cannot
be another player who did so much on the field of play but has so
little idea of cricket and cricketers.
The other thing about Bradman really is not his average - it's his
average stacked up against those around him. Averages across eras is a
dangerous game, but I do think that we can appraise Bradman and Grace,
and Viv Richards, in terms of the gap between them and everybody else
who was playing at the same time against the same set of bowlers and
under the same conditions. Bradman and Grace are, by that measure,
ahead of the pack in a way that nobody else has been - not Lara, not
Tendulkar and, in the end, not Viv Richards.
Which is not to say that Richards wasn't a marvellous player - more
that Botham is talking a load of cobblers (nothing unusual), and that
Richards didn't have the daylight between him and the rest that
Bradman had.
Cicero
> But it was universally accepted Viv is a better batsman than Greg
> Chappell.
>
>
>
>
Says who?
Cicero
>>How very wrong of you to say that: here is a short list of some of the
>>players who have dismissed: Harvey; Lindwall; Hassett and of course
>>Miller. There are more.
>
> Name them, then.
>
How about Barnes and Morris as openers? (Pun intended)
Cicero
consider Bradman would have been the same force in any era.
Full article
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/128792.html
Kevin_McHale
says everyone who played against both
Bob Dubery
> "Mango" <Fakem...@wherever.com> wrote in message
> > I agree the 1948 Australian team is over rated. They played against an
> > England recovering from war. If they were that exceptional they would
> > have carried on with the 1948 form. Instead, they were back in the pack
> > in just a couple of years.
>
> And Australia didnt have anything to do with or suffered from War ?
Not in the way that England did. Australia and Australians were not
subjected to the attacks on their country and had much better food
supplies throughout that conflict. There's a school of thought that
says that England team that Australia prevailed against, and indeed
the English in general, were weakened by a poor diet and because of
hardships resulting from the blitz.
Did Australia keep their FC cricket going during WW2?
I don't believe it was Mango's intent to say that Australia had no
role in WW2, but that country was not subjected to the kind of
bombardment and disruption - especially to foodstuffs - that England
was.
Mike Holmans
What hasn't happened for any other batsman in history is that his home
board whinges to the extent of threatening to break off diplomatic
relations with the country whose team has come up with a tactic which
makes their best batsman less effective. The ACB's record whinge is
still as unsurpassed as Bradman's average.
Lots of other batsmen have provoked tactics to try and neutraliase
them. Only the ACB has whinged when one worked.
Cheers,
Mike
Ian Galbraith
> Says who?
OK I wss biased but I thought at the time that Chappell's greater
consistency over his career made him equal to Viv.
--
"If nothing that we do matters, then all that matters is what we do" -
Angel
Cicero
"Kevin_McHale" <fa_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cea87043-5041-4343...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
So anecdotes are data now?
Have you asked everyone? Who are these people you are quoting?
Cicero
"Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:650eedec-2058-430a...@e26g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 30, 1:52 am, "Will_S" <willsj...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> "Mango" <Fakem...@wherever.com> wrote in message
>
>> > I agree the 1948 Australian team is over rated. They played against an
>> > England recovering from war. If they were that exceptional they would
>> > have carried on with the 1948 form. Instead, they were back in the
>> > pack
>> > in just a couple of years.
>>
>> And Australia didnt have anything to do with or suffered from War ?
>
> Not in the way that England did. Australia and Australians were not
> subjected to the attacks on their country and had much better food
> supplies throughout that conflict.
So the 248 Japanese air raids on Darwin weren't an attack on Australia? The
submarine attack on Sydney? The raids in the Torres Strait?
Bob, you are normally so precise with your facts but you made a small error
here. In saying that, Australia did not suffer in the way that the UK did
though.
Cicero
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tsnen31c58bmt3qsu...@4ax.com...
Cicero
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:49:38 GMT, Cicero wrote:
>
>>>
>>> But it was universally accepted Viv is a better batsman than Greg
>>> Chappell.
>
>> Says who?
>
> OK I wss biased but I thought at the time that Chappell's greater
> consistency over his career made him equal to Viv.
>
Milburn.
Robert Henderson
<DrRowland...@yahoo.com> writes
>http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article3289163.ece
>
>I regard him as the best player who ever played cricket. Bradman got all the
>records, but I wonder if Bradman could have adjusted to 20-, 40-, 50-over
>cricket as well as Test matches? When you look at footage from the 1930s,
>there's no science about the field placings. They were the same when the
>batsman arrived at the crease as they were when he'd scored 300. Obviously
>Bradman was an exceptional talent, but I find it hard to comprehend anyone
>ever being better than Viv."
>been the Test team par excellence. "People talk about the [1948 Australian]
>Invincibles. Baloney! They would have been blown away by that lot. And Clive
>Lloyd made them the West Indies, you know. He brought all those guys from
>different islands together, in a way that had never been done before, and
>hasn't been done properly since."
>
>
Routine Botham imbecility. Bradman was like no other player who has ever
lived, both his career and Test average being around double what a top
class player as normally defined would average. He also scored hundreds
far more frequently, made more double hundreds than anyone and was a
remarkably fast scorer., As for adjusting to limited over cricket, he
was positively made for it both from his natural fast rate of scoring
and his first class running between the wickets and top class fielding.
RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Cicero
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vPA7GbB1...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
I recall an interview with Bradman several years before he died. He said he
believed he would have scored a many runs against today's players, but
probably more slowly.
I have no doubt other top class players such as Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Trumper
would be as effective.
One other thing (though I can't use Stats Guru like Hamish)- I understand
Richards average in the red stripe cup where he had to face the Windies best
bowlers at the time was not that great- anyone able to comment?
John Hall
Mango <Fake...@wherever.com> writes:
>
>"Dr Rowland" <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:fl6j2r$rol$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>> "John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:l2m66UKW...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>>> Dr Rowland <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article3289163.ece
>>>>
>>>>I regard him as the best player who ever played cricket.
>>>
>>> Having followed the link, I discovered that "I" is Ian Botham. I don't
>>> regard Botham as being very knowledgeable about the history of the game,
>>> and Richards was a great mate of his, so it won't change my own view
>>> that Bradman is well ahead of Richards.
>>
>> when Bradman played is worth debating.
>>
>> Also his second comment about Clive Lloyds team capable of
>> blowing away the 1948 Austrailan invincibles.
>>
It would be a fascinating contest. The 1948 side had three fine fast
bowlers, but West Indies that the advantage of four. Both sides were
very strong in batting, and neither was very strong in spin.
>
>I agree the 1948 Australian team is over rated. They played against an
>England recovering from war.
The England batting was theoretically strong, with a top four of Hutton,
Washbrook, Bill Edrich and Compton, but only Compton really did himself
justice. The England bowling was over-dependent on Bedser (and even he
had a hard time of it). One advantage that the Australian fast bowlers
had was that a new ball was available that year after only 55 overs.
> If they were that exceptional they would have
>carried on with the 1948 form. Instead, they were back in the pack in just
>a couple of years.
They were the best side around for another four or five years, in spite
of losing Bradman and Barnes after 1948. Even after that, they weren't
"back in the pack", but were superior to everyone except a very good
English side. This in spit of the fact that as their fast bowlers aged
they were naturally no longer quite the same force.
>
>I've never had the opportunity to see Bradman bat, but his record speaks for
>itself. I have seen plenty of Viv Richards and there are other more modern
>day players just as good (Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting just to name three).
>Viv was a great player, but he didn't dominate as Bradman did.
>
I'd say that he _did_ dominate, but not so consistently as Bradman did.
It's true that Bradman played when things were generally more in favour
of the batsman, but I think that the disparity is too great to be due to
that alone.
John Hall
Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:14:41 -0800 (PST), Jellore
><jel...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 30, 1:04 pm, "Mango" <Fakem...@wherever.com> wrote:
>>> "Ian Galbraith" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> I agree the 1948 Australian team is over rated. They played against an
>>> >> have
>>> >> carried on with the 1948 form. Instead, they were back in the pack in
>>> >> just
>>> >> a couple of years.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's why I say the "team" was over rated. They generally played weak
>>> opposition in 1948 and once Bradman retired the others didn't continue to
>>> perform at the same level. The other members reputations were based on
>>> Bradman's ability.
>>
>>How very wrong of you to say that: here is a short list of some of the
>>players who have dismissed: Harvey; Lindwall; Hassett and of course
>>Miller. There are more.
>
>Name them, then.
One could add at least Morris, Johnston and Tallon, probably Barnes too.
>
>Half the 1948 side were relative mediocrities.
Of their first choice side (ie played in 3 or more of the 5 Tests), I
think you could say that only of Loxton, Toshack and Ian Johnson. Eight
great players out of eleven (or nine out of eleven if you place Loxton
by Harvey) is pretty good going.
> Accepting that Ponting
>is not the equal of Bradman, that they had no all-rounder to even
>compare with Miller and that Lindwall was not McGrath's inferior, the
>2001 side were all better than their equivalents in the 1948 side, in
>many cases much better. In 1948, England's bowling consisted of Bedser
>and, er, no-one. The next most successful bowler was Norman Yardley.
So you reckon that eight of the 2001 side were superior to their 1948
equivalent, and one was equal.
1948: Barnes, Morris, Bradman, Hassett, Miller, Loxton, Johnson, Tallon,
Lindwall, Johnston, Toshack.
2001: Slater, Hayden, Ponting, M Waugh, S Waugh, Martyn, Gilchrist,
Warne, Lee, Gillespie, McGrath.
Purely subjectively and off the top of my head, I'd say:
Barnes > Slater
Morris < Hayden
Bradman > Ponting
Hassett = M Waugh
Then it becomes difficult to compare like with like, so I'll just stick
to scorecard order, even though it means often comparing apples with
oranges.
Miller = S Waugh
Loxton < Martyn
Johnson < Gilchrist
Tallon < Warne (or Tallon < Gilchrist and Johnson < Warne, it makes no
difference)
Lindwall > Lee
Johnston = Gillespie
Toshack < McGrath
So that's 1948 3, 2001 5, with 3 dead heats. So though I would concede
that the 2001 side is probably the stronger (depending on how much
Bradman might affect the comparison), it's not by as much as you are
suggesting.
Cicero
Heavens I generally agree with what you say, but I disagree with a few
things here.
Morris - far better than Hayden. The RSA pacemen worked him out early on-
there have not been sufficiently good bowlers since then to exploit it.
Hassett- better than M. Waugh. In batting, by a street.
Miller- far better than S. Waugh. Far better bowler and I think not far
behind as a batsman. S. Waugh had his average get better as the bowling got
worse (and I am a fan of his).
Gerrit
> them. Only the ACB has whinged when one worked.
>
I wouldn't mind these statsBatting M I NO HS R AVGE
CT/ST
D.G.Bradman 4 8 1 103* 396 56.57 3
Jellore
> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e1ec0120-4613-4982...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 30, 12:30 pm, "Dr Rowland" <DrRowland72remt...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "dougie" <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote in message
>
> >news:Z5Cdj.29023$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > > Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>
> > >> c
> > >> "dougie" <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote in message
> > >>news:XaBdj.28997$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >>> Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>
> > >>>> "dougie" <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:qLAdj.28980$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >>>>> Dr Rowland wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>
> > >>>>>> I find it hard to comprehend anyone ever being better than Viv."
>
>
> > >>>> Ian Botham has seen Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting but he still thinks
> > >>>> Sir Viv is better than them.
>
> > >>> None of whom he played against.
>
> > >> Thats not a prerequisite to compare Viv with Lara, Tendulkar and
> > >> Ponting.
>
> > >>>He is guilty of inflating the worth of
> > >>> Viv Richards because Richards caned Botham himself. It makes Botham
> > >>> feel better. It heightens his ego to think "this guy Richards
> > >>> absolutely flogged me, he made me look second rate, therefore Viv
> > >>> Richards must have been the best batsman of all time".
>
> > >> Arent you stretching it too far ?
>
> > > No.
>
> > >> Didnt Viv cane other bowlers in Botham's era ?
>
> > > So did a number of other players.
>
> > Then you cannot argue that Botham chose Viv as the best batsman ever
> > because he mauled Botham.
>
> > >>> It is an ego-boosting and preservation exercise on the part of
> > >>> Botham. It has nothing to do with whether Viv Richards was actually
> > >>> as good as Botham says. It is all about preserving Botham's opinion
> > >>> of Botham.
>
> > >> Do you think Shane Warne used the same tactic and praised Tendulkar
> > >> to preserve his opinion about himself ?
>
> > > There might be some of that. You won't find Shane Warne saying Tendulkar
> > > was better than Bradman though,
>
> > That is not relevant to the point being discussed.
>
> > Shane Warne is an Australian and he will never say Tendulkar is better
> > than Australian Don Bradman whom Australians consider an "untouchable" .
>
> > >because he wouldn't have a clue. Nor does
> > > Ian Botham have a clue whether Richards was better than Bradman. Botham
> > > bowled to Richards. His views are coloured by that. No doubt Richards is
> > > one of the greats, but better than Bradman? Botham wouldn't have a clue.
>
> > How can "you" have a clue that Bradman is better than Richards if
> > Shane Warne doesnt have a clue between Tendulkar and Bradman,
> > Botham doesnt have a clue between Richards and Bradman......
>
> > >>>>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Bill O'Reilly or any other
> > >>>>> great bowler could be better than Warne. That doesn't mean they
> > >>>>> weren't.
>
> > >>>>> I might find it hard to comprehend that Sobers could be better than
> > >>>>> Botham even (I never saw Sobers) but that doesn't mean he wasn't.
>
> > >>>> Botham gave a couple of reasons of Bradman not playing 20, 40, 50
> > >>>> over games and the fact that field placings were the same all
> > >>>> through out the match during Bradman's innings.
>
> > >>> All fo which are irrelevant. Bradman played the crixcket that was
> > >>> available to him at the time. He average almost 100 in tests and 95
> > >>> in 1st class. iirc Richards didn't even average as high as Greg
> > >>> Chappell.
>
> > >> Botham was giving a few reasons why Bradman had that 100 average.
> > >> You dont want to debate those reasons ?
>
> > > No, it's been done before. What you have to do is compare Bradman to his
> > > own contemporaries. His contemporaries played with similar field
> > > placings, didn't have 20/20 or ODI either, but Bradman was streets ahead
> > > of them. Richards wasn't streets ahead of his own contemporaries.
>
> > >> But it was universally accepted Viv is a better batsman than Greg
> > >> Chappell.
>
> > > much better to watch. I would much rather watch Richards. Richards
> > > played
> > > some amazing shots and hit the ball with great power. That doesn't mean
> > > he was better.
>
>
> > >Just because you enjoyed watching him bat doesn't mean he
> > > was a better batsman.
>
> > Never said that.
>
> > >I also though Mark Waugh was much better to watch
> > > than Steve, but who was the better bat?
>
> > Mark Waugh for me and Steve Waugh when the team is in
> > dire situation.
> >>I think what Ian should have said was "Viv was the best batsman I
> >>played with" or "Viv was the best batsman I ever saw play". The only
> >>meaningful way to compare players between the ages are the stats,
> >>although even those as we know can be flawed.
>
> If Ian Botham thought Viv is the best batsman ever after watching 30s
> videos of Don Bradman thats his prerogative. He is entitled to his opinion
> just like I and you are.
I guess I should have qualified my statement by saying "the best
batsman he actually saw play".
Mad Hamish
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:14:41 -0800 (PST), Jellore
><jel...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 30, 1:04 pm, "Mango" <Fakem...@wherever.com> wrote:
>>> "Ian Galbraith" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:q16dvptwthr9.11gpp57z7oeo7$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> I agree the 1948 Australian team is over rated. They played against an
>>> >> England recovering from war. If they were that exceptional they would
>>> >> have
>>> >> carried on with the 1948 form. Instead, they were back in the pack in
>>> >> just
>>> >> a couple of years.
>>>
>>> > Er yeah because Bradman retired, he makes all the difference.
>>>
>>> That's why I say the "team" was over rated. They generally played weak
>>> opposition in 1948 and once Bradman retired the others didn't continue to
>>> perform at the same level. The other members reputations were based on
>>> Bradman's ability.
>>
>>How very wrong of you to say that: here is a short list of some of the
>>players who have dismissed: Harvey; Lindwall; Hassett and of course
>>Miller. There are more.
>
>Name them, then.
>
>Half the 1948 side were relative mediocrities.
which half?
Morris
Barnes
Bradman
Hassett
Harvey
Miller
Tallon
Lindwall
Toshack
Ian Johnson
Bill Johnston
doesn't contain too many mediocre players
(Ian Johnson probably qualifies)
>Accepting that Ponting
>is not the equal of Bradman, that they had no all-rounder to even
>compare with Miller and that Lindwall was not McGrath's inferior, the
>2001 side were all better than their equivalents in the 1948 side, in
>many cases much better.
Slater was better than Barnes or Morris?
Hayden better than the other one?
Mark Waugh better than Hassett?
Steve Waugh clearly better than Harvey?
> In 1948, England's bowling consisted of Bedser
>and, er, no-one. The next most successful bowler was Norman Yardley.
while the 2001 England bowling didn't have anybody as good as Bedser..
The 48 selectors seem to have done a lot of panicking.
The number of players who only played 1 or 2 tests is fairly
impressive, funnily enough it includes a lot of bowlers
Hollies, Pollard, Wright,
also what did the 2001 English batting consist of?
How does it compare to
Hutton
Washbrook
Edrich
Compton?
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Graybags
"Cicero" <tezz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mTJdj.29198$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
It surely wasn't. "Bodyline" was only banned because it provided dull
cricket. To complain about someone setting a field to neutralise your
greatest threat during a series is plain wrong. Moan afterwards about the
cricket produced, and argue for a law change.
If you're complaining about "danger", the I suggest you watch some West
Indies matches from 1970 - 1990 - that was rough, but no-one complained,
until one day internationals made repeated bouncers illegal (more's the
pity).
Graybags
Mad Hamish
DCS Compton 5 10 1 562 62.44 184 2 2 2
C Washbrook 4 8 1 356 50.85 143 2 1 3
L Hutton 4 8 0 342 42.75 81 4 0 5
WJ Edrich 5 10 0 319 31.90 111 2 1 5
>The England bowling was over-dependent on Bedser (and even he
>had a hard time of it). One advantage that the Australian fast bowlers
>had was that a new ball was available that year after only 55 overs.
>
>> If they were that exceptional they would have
>>carried on with the 1948 form. Instead, they were back in the pack in just
>>a couple of years.
>
>They were the best side around for another four or five years, in spite
>of losing Bradman and Barnes after 1948. Even after that, they weren't
>"back in the pack", but were superior to everyone except a very good
>English side. This in spit of the fact that as their fast bowlers aged
>they were naturally no longer quite the same force.
>>
>>I've never had the opportunity to see Bradman bat, but his record speaks for
>>itself. I have seen plenty of Viv Richards and there are other more modern
>>day players just as good (Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting just to name three).
>>Viv was a great player, but he didn't dominate as Bradman did.
>>
>
>I'd say that he _did_ dominate, but not so consistently as Bradman did.
>It's true that Bradman played when things were generally more in favour
>of the batsman, but I think that the disparity is too great to be due to
>that alone.
a) uncovered wickets
b) it didn't seme to affect the other batsmen the same.
Mad Hamish
12 tests 47 wickets @ 21.
didn't play enough to be rated a great but far from mediocre.
>and Ian Johnson. Eight
>great players out of eleven (or nine out of eleven if you place Loxton
>by Harvey) is pretty good going.
>
>> Accepting that Ponting
>>is not the equal of Bradman, that they had no all-rounder to even
>>compare with Miller and that Lindwall was not McGrath's inferior, the
>>2001 side were all better than their equivalents in the 1948 side, in
>>many cases much better. In 1948, England's bowling consisted of Bedser
>>and, er, no-one. The next most successful bowler was Norman Yardley.
>
>So you reckon that eight of the 2001 side were superior to their 1948
>equivalent, and one was equal.
>
>1948: Barnes, Morris, Bradman, Hassett, Miller, Loxton, Johnson, Tallon,
>Lindwall, Johnston, Toshack.
>
>2001: Slater, Hayden, Ponting, M Waugh, S Waugh, Martyn, Gilchrist,
>Warne, Lee, Gillespie, McGrath.
>
>Purely subjectively and off the top of my head, I'd say:
>
>Barnes > Slater
>Morris < Hayden
it's also certainly arguable that if you compare Barnes with Hayden
and Morris with Slater that's both to the 48 team as well.
>Bradman > Ponting
>Hassett = M Waugh
>
>Then it becomes difficult to compare like with like, so I'll just stick
>to scorecard order, even though it means often comparing apples with
>oranges.
>
>Miller = S Waugh
>Loxton < Martyn
I'd say that Miller's bowling record could justify rating him above
Steve. Quick bowlers with averages of under 23 not being overly common
alternatively you could compare them the other way around which gives
Steve a clear win over Loxton and Miller a win over Martyn.
>Johnson < Gilchrist
>Tallon < Warne (or Tallon < Gilchrist and Johnson < Warne, it makes no
>difference)
Tallon could catch though...
>Lindwall > Lee
>Johnston = Gillespie
Johnston has a fair case to be rated ahead of Gillespie, if for no
other reason than him being extremely useful as a finger spinner as
well as a quick
>Toshack < McGrath
Or you could compare Lindwall and McGrath (assume they're equal) and
Toshack and Lee and Toshack comes out ahead...
>
>So that's 1948 3, 2001 5, with 3 dead heats. So though I would concede
>that the 2001 side is probably the stronger (depending on how much
>Bradman might affect the comparison), it's not by as much as you are
>suggesting.
--
Mad Hamish
<DrRowland...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:l2m66UKW...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>> In article <fl6b9f$4gt$1...@aioe.org>,
>> Dr Rowland <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article3289163.ece
>>>
>>>I regard him as the best player who ever played cricket.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Having followed the link, I discovered that "I" is Ian Botham. I don't
>> regard Botham as being very knowledgeable about the history of the game,
>> and Richards was a great mate of his, so it won't change my own view
>> that Bradman is well ahead of Richards.
>
>But what Ian Botham said about the field placings and tactics in the 30s
>when Bradman played is worth debating.
>
Only if he can actually provide any source for it.
Because it completely contradicts all the sources I've read about
cricket in that era.
>Also his second comment about Clive Lloyds team capable of
>blowing away the 1948 Austrailan invincibles.
>
Who knows?
Maybe Miller, Lindwall, Johnstone would have wiped the floor with the
Windies batting.
Richard Dixon
@aioe.org:
> But what Ian Botham said about the field placings and tactics in the 30s
> when Bradman played is worth debating.
Although a large percentage of Botham's views are worth ignoring - as
Fletcher alluded to in his book. I think he's just a self-important loud
mouth.
Richard
Richard Dixon
news:XaBdj.28997$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> It is an ego-boosting and preservation exercise on the part of Botham.
> It has nothing to do with whether Viv Richards was actually as good as
> Botham says. It is all about preserving Botham's opinion of Botham.
Agreed. Reminds me of the anecdote by Simon Hughes at a restaurant where
Botham asks if they have any of that "Dolcette" cheese and Simon Hughes
corrects him with "It's actually called Dolcelatte" - to which Botham
retorts "Well how many Test wickets have you taken?" - which gives you a
measure of the man.
Richard
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>
>"Dr Rowland" <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:fl6j2r$rol$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>> "John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:l2m66UKW...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>>> In article <fl6b9f$4gt$1...@aioe.org>,
>>> Dr Rowland <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article3289163.ece
>>>>
>>>>I regard him as the best player who ever played cricket.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Having followed the link, I discovered that "I" is Ian Botham. I don't
>>> regard Botham as being very knowledgeable about the history of the game,
>>> and Richards was a great mate of his, so it won't change my own view
>>> that Bradman is well ahead of Richards.
>>
>> But what Ian Botham said about the field placings and tactics in the 30s
>> when Bradman played is worth debating.
>>
>> Also his second comment about Clive Lloyds team capable of
>> blowing away the 1948 Austrailan invincibles.
>>
>
>I agree the 1948 Australian team is over rated. They played against an
>England recovering from war.
a) Australia was also recovering from the war
b) I think it was Voce who said that the typical England cricketer was
fitter after the war than before it due to rationing.
> If they were that exceptional they would have
>carried on with the 1948 form.
Well the side had really started in 46-47
In that time they beat NZ in a 1 off test
England
India
England
SA
England
Windies
drew with SA
and then lost to England in 53
by that stage Miller was almost 34 and his back wasn't getting any
better, Lindwall 32 and Bill Johnston 31 had (iirc) had a couple of
knee operations which weren't overly well advanced at the time...
Hassett was 40, Bradman and Barnes were gone
> Instead, they were back in the pack in just
>a couple of years.
Where a couple of years is 7 years from the start of the run.
>
>I've never had the opportunity to see Bradman bat, but his record speaks for
>itself. I have seen plenty of Viv Richards and there are other more modern
>day players just as good (Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting just to name three).
>Viv was a great player, but he didn't dominate as Bradman did.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>
>"Jellore" <jel...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:d18c5ca4-9047-4491...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 30, 1:04 pm, "Mango" <Fakem...@wherever.com> wrote:
>> "Ian Galbraith" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:q16dvptwthr9.11gpp57z7oeo7$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I agree the 1948 Australian team is over rated. They played against an
>> >> England recovering from war. If they were that exceptional they would
>> >> have
>> >> carried on with the 1948 form. Instead, they were back in the pack in
>> >> just
>> >> a couple of years.
>>
>> > Er yeah because Bradman retired, he makes all the difference.
>>
>> That's why I say the "team" was over rated. They generally played weak
>> opposition in 1948 and once Bradman retired the others didn't continue to
>> perform at the same level. The other members reputations were based on
>> Bradman's ability.
>
>How very wrong of you to say that: here is a short list of some of the
>players who have dismissed: Harvey; Lindwall; Hassett and of course
>Miller. There are more.
>
>
>Fine players, but the Australian team did not dominate through the early
>fifties with thoose players in the side. The reason was that there were
>planty of players just as good in other teams. I doubt they would be good
>enough to play for the current team (maybe with the exception of Lindwall).
>
Probably not, almost all of them are dead and the rest are going to be
well into their 80s.
Mad Hamish
<DrRowland...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Will_S" <will...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:47770296$0$25392$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>>
>> innovation hmmm, let me see...... legside mmmmmmm bodyline
>> mmmmmm
>>
>> plenty of innovation
>>>
>
>Bodyline is just one innovation and probably in the later part of
>Don Bradman's cricket career.
If you know that little about the history of cricket perhaps you
shouldn't be commenting on what cricket in the 30s and 40s was like?
Cicero
>
> If Ian Botham thought Viv is the best batsman ever after watching 30s
> videos of Don Bradman thats his prerogative. He is entitled to his opinion
> just like I and you are.
I guess I should have qualified my statement by saying "the best
batsman he actually saw play".
I'd like to know how much matchplay Botham actually saw- if any. There is
not a huge amount avaialable.
Cicero
"Graybags" <gb...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:5tpebqF...@mid.individual.net...
There was just a slight difference. Do you know anything of the history of
Bodyline?
Jellore
What are you talking about ? How many first class games did Botham
play ?
Cicero
Sorry- should have explained it better. I meant how many of Bradman's games
he (Botham) has actually seen.
Rodney Ulyate
>>> Chappell.
> says everyone who played against both
Everyone who played against both reckons that Richards is universally
accepted as the better batsman? Humour me and name one.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"If you're playing against the Australians you don't walk."
Ian Botham
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
John Hall
Cicero <tezz...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Heavens I generally agree with what you say, but I disagree with a few
>things here.
>
>Morris - far better than Hayden. The RSA pacemen worked him out early
>on- there have not been sufficiently good bowlers since then to exploit
>it.
But Bedser "worked out" Morris, to the extent that he became known as
"Bedser's bunny".
>
>Hassett- better than M. Waugh. In batting, by a street.
Possible better, but not by a street.
>
>Miller- far better than S. Waugh. Far better bowler and I think not far
>behind as a batsman. S. Waugh had his average get better as the bowling
>got worse (and I am a fan of his).
It's difficult to compare an all-rounder with a specialist batsman (as
Waugh must be considered for most of his career). Miller is the best
all-rounder that Australia have ever had, Waugh one of their best three
or four batsmen IMO. I don't feel that I can rank one higher than the
other.
John Hall
Dr Rowland <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Botham gave a couple of reasons of Bradman not playing 20, 40, 50 over
>games
Which is surely irrelevant if we compare them at the highest level of
the game, ie Test cricket. (I suspect that Bradman would have been
highly effdctive in limited overs cricket had he played it.)
> and the fact that field placings were the same all through out the
>match during Bradman's innings.
>
Botham's "fact" here is fiction.
John Hall
dougie <n...@anywhere.atall.org> writes:
>He is guilty of inflating the worth of
>Viv Richards because Richards caned Botham himself. It makes Botham feel
>better. It heightens his ego to think "this guy Richards absolutely
>flogged me, he made me look second rate, therefore Viv Richards must have
>been the best batsman of all time".
Also Botham and Richards were great friends, starting as young players
at Somerset together circa 1974.
Bob Dubery
> "Bob Dubery" <megap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:650eedec-2058-430a...@e26g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 30, 1:52 am, "Will_S" <willsj...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> "Mango" <Fakem...@wherever.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > I agree the 1948 Australian team is over rated. They played against an
> >> > England recovering from war. If they were that exceptional they would
> >> > have carried on with the 1948 form. Instead, they were back in the
> >> > pack
> >> > in just a couple of years.
>
>
> > Not in the way that England did. Australia and Australians were not
> > subjected to the attacks on their country and had much better food
> > supplies throughout that conflict.
>
> So the 248 Japanese air raids on Darwin weren't an attack on Australia? The
> submarine attack on Sydney? The raids in the Torres Strait?
>
> Bob, you are normally so precise with your facts but you made a small error
> here. In saying that, Australia did not suffer in the way that the UK did
> though.
You'd think I'd said that it's been said that Australia didn't suffer
at all. I didn't, and I don't think anybody else has. But I think it
fair to say that Australia did not sustain the kind of bombardment and
resulting damage that Britain did. Consider Coventry, Birmingham,
London... over a million homes lost.
I should think the sheer size of Australia put much of it's farming
land out of enemy range for a start. And that would have meant that
Australia was able to feed it's population better during the war and
in the immediate post-war years. England had rationing into the 1950s.
Graybags
> There was just a slight difference. Do you know anything of the history of
> Bodyline?
Mike Holmans
<rodney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kevin_McHale snorted:
>> On Dec 30, 1:49 am, "Cicero" <tezza...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> But it was universally accepted Viv is a better batsman than Greg
>>>> Chappell.
>>> Says who?
>> says everyone who played against both
>
>Everyone who played against both reckons that Richards is universally
>accepted as the better batsman? Humour me and name one.
Ian Botham, obviously, since that's where this thread started. Along
with approximately 100% of their contemporaries.
What's intriguing, though, is your implication that there are some
bizarre people who wouldn't agree that IVAR was easily superior to
Greg Chappell as a batsman. I've never met such an individual and am
curious to know where you found one.
Cheers,
Mike
Andy Walker
John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>1948: Barnes, Morris, Bradman, Hassett, Miller, Loxton, Johnson, Tallon,
>Lindwall, Johnston, Toshack.
>2001: Slater, Hayden, Ponting, M Waugh, S Waugh, Martyn, Gilchrist,
>Warne, Lee, Gillespie, McGrath.
>Purely subjectively and off the top of my head, I'd say:
>Barnes > Slater
>Morris < Hayden
>Bradman > Ponting
>Hassett = M Waugh
No very strong argument yet ....
>Then it becomes difficult to compare like with like, so I'll just stick
>to scorecard order, even though it means often comparing apples with
>oranges.
I think it makes more sense if you think of Miller as two
players, MillerA the batsman and MillerB the bowler; and similarly
with GilchristA the batsman and GilchristB the WK. Then we get
>Miller = S Waugh
>Loxton < Martyn
>Johnson < Gilchrist
>Tallon < Warne (or Tallon < Gilchrist and Johnson < Warne, it makes no
>difference)
Johnson < Warne, Tallon > GilchristB; then we have to
compare MillerA and Loxton with SWaugh and Martyn, which [to me]
is clearly in favour of the moderns [though MillerA and Loxton
are not *weak* batsmen], with MillerB and GilchristA left over.
>Lindwall > Lee
>Johnston = Gillespie
>Toshack < McGrath
The fast bowling is Lindwall, MillerB, Johnston vs McGrath,
Gillespie and Lee. To me, though it's in total a close call, that's
in favour of the ancients, say by 2-1. That leaves Toshack and
GilchristA, the only *real* "apples vs oranges" problem. Gilchrist
gives a further edge to the late middle-order batting, but Toshack
[+Loxton] gives much more to the bowling than the Oz reserves; call
it a draw? [Or you could pair GilchristA with MillerA, pretty much
level, leaving SWaugh to dominate Loxton, and Martyn as the odd one
out to compare with Toshack.]
>So that's 1948 3, 2001 5, with 3 dead heats.
My score is pretty-much level, though I wouldn't argue a
point or two either way.
> So though I would concede
>that the 2001 side is probably the stronger (depending on how much
>Bradman might affect the comparison), it's not by as much as you are
>suggesting.
["you" = MikeH]
Our resident bigot was trying to tell us a few weeks back
that Oz over the past decade is no better than Oz in the fifties.
I think that *is* a stretch too far; but it is still at least
arguable that the '48 side was as good as any Test side ever seen.
The slow bowling wasn't up to scratch [though that didn't seem to
matter to the great WIndies teams], and they didn't really bat in
depth the way recent Oz teams have; but the fast bowling and the
top order were exceptional.
An interesting "what if" might be to speculate on what an
Oz side of around 1944 would have looked like without WW2. Perhaps
something like:
Barnes, Brown, Bradman, McCabe, Hassett, Miller, McCool,
Tallon, Lindwall, Johnston, O'Reilly.
But '44 might be a year or two too early for Johnston, in particular,
and perhaps even Lindwall, to have played enough to make the Test
side. Barnes, Brown and Hassett, probably also Miller, lost their
best years to the war, so it would have been a pretty decent team,
to say the least.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
John Hall
Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.uk> writes:
> Our resident bigot was trying to tell us a few weeks back
>that Oz over the past decade is no better than Oz in the fifties.
>I think that *is* a stretch too far; but it is still at least
>arguable that the '48 side was as good as any Test side ever seen.
>The slow bowling wasn't up to scratch [though that didn't seem to
>matter to the great WIndies teams], and they didn't really bat in
>depth the way recent Oz teams have; but the fast bowling and the
>top order were exceptional.
>
> An interesting "what if" might be to speculate on what an
>Oz side of around 1944 would have looked like without WW2. Perhaps
>something like:
>
> Barnes, Brown, Bradman, McCabe, Hassett, Miller, McCool,
>Tallon, Lindwall, Johnston, O'Reilly.
>
>But '44 might be a year or two too early for Johnston, in particular,
>and perhaps even Lindwall, to have played enough to make the Test
>side. Barnes, Brown and Hassett, probably also Miller, lost their
>best years to the war, so it would have been a pretty decent team,
>to say the least.
I believe that injury caused O'Reilly to retire after 1945-6 when,
judguing by his figures against NZ, he may still have been bowling as
well as ever. Imagine the 1948 side with O'Reilly in place of Toshack or
Johnson!
John Hall
Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
[replying to Rodney]
>What's intriguing, though, is your implication that there are some
>bizarre people who wouldn't agree that IVAR was easily superior to
>Greg Chappell as a batsman. I've never met such an individual and am
>curious to know where you found one.
I would say that Richards was superior to Greg Chappell, but I wouldn't
agree that he was "easily superior". If that makes me bizarre, then so
be it. :)
FWIW, John Woodcock has Chappell 44th, Richards 8th and Bradman 2nd in
his list of the 100 greatest cricketers of all time.
Kevin_McHale
> "Kevin_McHale" <fa_ah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cea87043-5041-4343...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 30, 1:49 am, "Cicero" <tezza...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But it was universally accepted Viv is a better batsman than Greg
> > > Chappell.
>
> > Says who?
>
> says everyone who played against both
>
>
> Have you asked everyone? Who are these people you are quoting?
Imran Khan, Lillee, Hadlee, Kapil Dev, Botham, Willis, Sarfraz Nawaz,
Holding and Marshall (the last 2 had Richards 2nd overal behind Rowe)
You can read Imran Khan's comments here:
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/westindies/content/story/60019.html
Hadlee:
http://www.cricketweb.net/content/hadlee-interview.php
Read 'Whispering Death' and 'Marshall arts' for comments by Holding
and Marshall
Lillee: read his autobiographies, or my reproduction of his list oif
best batsmen here - http://tinyurl.com/2mhgu6
Kevin_McHale
> "Kevin_McHale" <fa_ah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cea87043-5041-4343...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 30, 1:49 am, "Cicero" <tezza...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But it was universally accepted Viv is a better batsman than Greg
> > > Chappell.
>
> > Says who?
>
> says everyone who played against both
>
> So anecdotes are data now?
>
> Have you asked everyone? Who are these people you are quoting?
what's wrong with anecdotes, anyways? data suggests Kallis is betetr
than Tendulkar and Lara and almost the equal of Ponting. Read
comments by the folks who bolwed against all 4, and I'd bet Kallis
would be 4th out of 4 in almost all rankings
Lillee's average was inferior to several of his contemporaries, but he
too was universally regarded as the best. People like Hadlee and
Imran Khan, who both had better averages, were in awe of the great
man.
Perhaps the measuring stick should be a combination of data, anecdotes
and one's own eye. This is a personal opinion, but I always though
Crowe was a great batsman despite his 44/45 average because he
dictated against the best bowlers. Data would suggest Kallis and
Yusuf are far, far superior to Crowe but I feel they're only very good.
David North
news:UnEdj.29064$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> On Dec 30, 1:04 pm, "Mango" <Fakem...@wherever.com> wrote:
>> "Ian Galbraith" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:q16dvptwthr9.11gpp57z7oeo7$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> England recovering from war. If they were that exceptional they would
>> >> have
>> >> carried on with the 1948 form. Instead, they were back in the pack in
>> >> just
>> >> a couple of years.
>>
>>
>> That's why I say the "team" was over rated. They generally played weak
>> opposition in 1948 and once Bradman retired the others didn't continue to
>> perform at the same level. The other members reputations were based on
>> Bradman's ability.
>
> How very wrong of you to say that: here is a short list of some of the
> players who have dismissed: Harvey; Lindwall; Hassett and of course
> Miller. There are more.
>
>
> Fine players, but the Australian team did not dominate through the early
> fifties with thoose players in the side. The reason was that there were
> planty of players just as good in other teams. I doubt they would be good
> enough to play for the current team (maybe with the exception of
> Lindwall).
So Keith Miller, arguably the greatest bowling all-rounder of all time,
would not get into the current side ahead of Symonds or Johnson? Strange
theory.
--
David North
Test Career Ratings: http://www.lanefarm.plus.com/cricket/ratings
Robert Henderson
<tezz...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>I recall an interview with Bradman several years before he died. He
>said he believed he would have scored a many runs against today's
>players, but probably more slowly.
>
>I have no doubt other top class players such as Hobbs, Sutcliffe,
>Trumper would be as effective.
>
>One other thing (though I can't use Stats Guru like Hamish)- I
>understand Richards average in the red stripe cup where he had to face
>the Windies best bowlers at the time was not that great- anyone able to
>comment?
That is true. I have a feeling he averaged less than 30. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Fred
wrote:
> Routine Botham imbecility. Bradman was like no other player who has ever
> lived, both his career and Test average being around double what a top
> class player as normally defined would average. He also scored hundreds
> far more frequently, made more double hundreds than anyone and was a
> remarkably fast scorer., As for adjusting to limited over cricket, he
> was positively made for it both from his natural fast rate of scoring
> and his first class running between the wickets and top class fielding.
> RH
Hell freezes over - RH speaks the truth...
Kevin_McHale
wrote:
> In message <FFKdj.29211$CN4.11...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Cicero
> <tezza...@hotmail.com> writes
He averaged 39.16 in first-class matches in the WI through the '90-'91
season (when Hitting Accross the Line was published). The teams he
struggled against were Barbados (27+ avg) and Jamaica (34+ avg). He
did well against Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Daniel, Imran Khan,
LeRoux and others in county cricket but found the going tough when he
encountered a pack of quicks. But then so did everyone else.
Rodney Ulyate
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:56:35 +0200, Rodney Ulyate
> <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Kevin_McHale snorted:
>>> On Dec 30, 1:49 am, "Cicero" <tezza...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> But it was universally accepted Viv is a better batsman than Greg
>>>>> Chappell.
>>>> Says who?
>>> says everyone who played against both
>> Everyone who played against both reckons that Richards is universally
>> accepted as the better batsman? Humour me and name one.
> Ian Botham, obviously, since that's where this thread started.
Where in that piece does Botham claim for Richards universally-accepted
superiority over Chappell?
> Along with approximately 100% of their contemporaries.
In which case, approximately 100% of their contemporaries are
presumptious fools.
> What's intriguing, though, is your implication that there are some
> bizarre people who wouldn't agree that IVAR was easily superior to
> Greg Chappell as a batsman. I've never met such an individual and am
> curious to know where you found one.
On this very newsgroup, in this very thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/a0eb5fe72cd929d7
Saith Ian Galbraith: "OK I wss [sic] biased but I thought at the time
that Chappell's greater consistency over his career made him equal to Viv."
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Yorkshire 232 all out, Hutton ill -- I'm sorry, Hutton 111."
John Snagge, BBC News
Rodney Ulyate
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:00:35 -0800, "Dr Rowland"
> <DrRowland...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Will_S" <will...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:47770296$0$25392$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> innovation hmmm, let me see...... legside mmmmmmm bodyline
>>> mmmmmm
>>> plenty of innovation
>> Bodyline is just one innovation and probably in the later part of
>> Don Bradman's cricket career.
> If you know that little about the history of cricket perhaps you
> shouldn't be commenting on what cricket in the 30s and 40s was like?
Surely its lack of knowledge was apparent to you long before this?
Studious pseudonyms can only do so much, and this one has failed
miserably if its intended purpose was to render our friend more sapient
than it is under such titles as CricketLeague, Ian Thorpe and, sadly,
Rodney Ulyate.
We must give the poor thing credit, though. In its directionless
pursuit of racist agendas, it has set off some decent cricket debate.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"27.4 Hogg to Styris, no run, huge shot up and over, right out of the
screws as they say 27.5 Hogg to Styris, SIX, defended"
A Cricinfo commentator
Cicero
"Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:92f27d25-a52c-4dd1...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Australia and Australians were not
> > subjected to the attacks on their country and had much better food
> > supplies throughout that conflict.
Australia WAS subjected to enemy attack. That statement of yours is wrong.
I have already said that it was not on the scale of the UK- that is not an
issue.
Cicero
"Rodney Ulyate" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47783649$0$27883$8826...@free.teranews.com...
Sock puppets are an indication of the mentality of the person.
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> On this very newsgroup, in this very thread:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/a0eb5fe72cd929d7
>
> Saith Ian Galbraith: "OK I wss [sic] biased but I thought at the time
> that Chappell's greater consistency over his career made him equal to Viv."
I should add that I was young then, now I would put Viv ahead but not
easily. At his best he was incomparable but he wasn't at his best often
enough, a bit like Lara.
--
"The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors
but “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” To this end,
copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but
encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed
by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate." - Jonathan
Lethem
Bob Dubery
My apologies for the poor sentence construction. And I think you've
ignored much else of what I've said in this thread.
Cicero
No- I accept all else that you said. This was a very minor part of your
whole argument and I never intended to start any flame war over it.
kenh...@hotmail.com
Made perfect sense to me,
Bob had already clarified to Will, in response to Australia's
suffering during the war
"Not in the way that England did."
That statement is quite correct.
I depends what stuff you read about that 48 tour.
Whilst plenty of it gushes about the team and it's stars, there's
plenty that mentions the impact the war had on the cricketers,
especially those from England.
Read up on what Miller has to say about it-he wasn't overly enamoured
of some of the tactics (and the ruthless execution) applied by
Bradman.
The 48 team were quite special, but they didn't face a particualrly
difficult opposition.
I'd be putting my money on Lloyd's WIndies too
Higgs