The Bedge wrote:Although Sayers appears to be the next in line, let's not forget Bird is in the squad, was released to play in Adelaide over the weekend and collected 8/81 for the game.
Perhaps his efforts will elevate him above Sayers who was forced to sit out and watch the Aussies in Brisbane.
I'm not much of a risk take and prefer what I know so personally in a tight Ashes series I would be going with the infirm bloke with a test bowling average of 25 over a debutant.
For me Birds experience albeit small amount is the deciding factors between two blokes almost impossible to seperate on any ability
I'd go with the only bowler of his generation with a first class average under 24.
And that's fair enough
I guess that's why these forums exsist coz there is no right or wrong until after the event and we all have opinions
Steve Smith is an absolute freak, still can't believe the way he has turned himself into such a brilliant, dependable and adaptable test match batsman. I will keep referring back to these tables and keep comparing his stats with others. Hope he keeps going the way he is!
The Bedge wrote:Those tables just remind me how much of a freak Bradman truly was!
Better than all of them, he did it on wickets that had no covers.....
The old covers chestnut. That one always makes me laugh. If it doesn't rain for 3 or 4 days leading up to a game of cricket and not during the game then what benefit are covers anyway. The way "experts" throw around the "no covers in those days" comments would make you think that covers have made batting so much easier even when it doesn't rain for a month of Sunday's. And do we know for sure that pre World War 2 groundsman didn't use rudimentary means to protect their wickets in the lead up to a game even if the laws back then didn't allow or didn't account for the use of covers once the game had commenced. No doubt that Trumper, Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond et al played on some soft stickies that the current day player isn't exposed to but anyone would think that in the "good ole days" it used to rain all summer in the cricket playing nations.
The Bedge wrote:Those tables just remind me how much of a freak Bradman truly was!
Better than all of them, he did it on wickets that had no covers.....
The old covers chestnut. That one always makes me laugh. If it doesn't rain for 3 or 4 days leading up to a game of cricket and not during the game then what benefit are covers anyway. The way "experts" throw around the "no covers in those days" comments would make you think that covers have made batting so much easier even when it doesn't rain for a month of Sunday's. And do we know for sure that pre World War 2 groundsman didn't use rudimentary means to protect their wickets in the lead up to a game even if the laws back then didn't allow or didn't account for the use of covers once the game had commenced. No doubt that Trumper, Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond et al played on some soft stickies that the current day player isn't exposed to but anyone would think that in the "good ole days" it used to rain all summer in the cricket playing nations.
The Bedge wrote:Those tables just remind me how much of a freak Bradman truly was!
Better than all of them, he did it on wickets that had no covers.....
The old covers chestnut. That one always makes me laugh. If it doesn't rain for 3 or 4 days leading up to a game of cricket and not during the game then what benefit are covers anyway. The way "experts" throw around the "no covers in those days" comments would make you think that covers have made batting so much easier even when it doesn't rain for a month of Sunday's. And do we know for sure that pre World War 2 groundsman didn't use rudimentary means to protect their wickets in the lead up to a game even if the laws back then didn't allow or didn't account for the use of covers once the game had commenced. No doubt that Trumper, Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond et al played on some soft stickies that the current day player isn't exposed to but anyone would think that in the "good ole days" it used to rain all summer in the cricket playing nations.
Pitches would've been very average by the end of tests, not just the start. I doubt there would've been groundsman who were committed full time to producing a beautiful deck like these days.
Not just soft sticky wickets, would've got a few that crumbled or opened up badly over the course of a game.
Think pitch difference is a valid point.
Apart from the pitches though, bats weren't nearly as good as now and grounds were full size, not roped off 20m in like these days as well.
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
The Bedge wrote:Those tables just remind me how much of a freak Bradman truly was!
Better than all of them, he did it on wickets that had no covers.....
The old covers chestnut. That one always makes me laugh. If it doesn't rain for 3 or 4 days leading up to a game of cricket and not during the game then what benefit are covers anyway. The way "experts" throw around the "no covers in those days" comments would make you think that covers have made batting so much easier even when it doesn't rain for a month of Sunday's. And do we know for sure that pre World War 2 groundsman didn't use rudimentary means to protect their wickets in the lead up to a game even if the laws back then didn't allow or didn't account for the use of covers once the game had commenced. No doubt that Trumper, Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond et al played on some soft stickies that the current day player isn't exposed to but anyone would think that in the "good ole days" it used to rain all summer in the cricket playing nations.
The Bedge wrote:Those tables just remind me how much of a freak Bradman truly was!
Better than all of them, he did it on wickets that had no covers.....
The old covers chestnut. That one always makes me laugh. If it doesn't rain for 3 or 4 days leading up to a game of cricket and not during the game then what benefit are covers anyway. The way "experts" throw around the "no covers in those days" comments would make you think that covers have made batting so much easier even when it doesn't rain for a month of Sunday's. And do we know for sure that pre World War 2 groundsman didn't use rudimentary means to protect their wickets in the lead up to a game even if the laws back then didn't allow or didn't account for the use of covers once the game had commenced. No doubt that Trumper, Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond et al played on some soft stickies that the current day player isn't exposed to but anyone would think that in the "good ole days" it used to rain all summer in the cricket playing nations.
He did play a number of games in England.
Never played outside of England and Australia if I remember correctly
It has been pretty standard throughout cricket's history that a batsman who averages 40 is a good player and someone who averages 50+ is a great player.
Perhaps a few more are tipping over the 50 threshold now compared to previously but it's still a pretty decent measure of a player's worth. Times change, pitches change, rules change but that 40/50 mark remains a pretty solid guide.
There is just one outlier in any era - Bradman.
This is Tony Clifton! A name to respect! A name to fear!
