- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
21 Dec 16
Originally posted by radioactive69Too easy
As soon as you started this thread the Ozzies have been unbeaten and England have been repeatedly thrashed.
What's daddy got to say about that old boy !![/b]
Think you mean 'since' I started the thread, but wrong yet again. You were just all out 85. Hadn't lost the 2nd Test v SA then, but you did. Check facts, Champ. Otherwise you look silly
He says you are a great w.....sorry ranker. Clear for all to see
have a great Christmas, Champ
Originally posted by Blood On The TracksWow........the zombie apocalypse must have started. Must be quite on the nose by now old boy.
Too easy
Think you mean 'since' I started the thread, but wrong yet again. You were just all out 85. Hadn't lost the 2nd Test v SA then, but you did. Check facts, Champ. Otherwise you look silly
He says you are a great w.....sorry ranker. Clear for all to see
have a great Christmas, Champ
Yes ....facts are facts socky. England number 5 dropping like lead balloons. At the rate they're dropping it shouldn't be long before they sink below Zimbabwe. Your bowlers couldn't hit the side of a barn at the moment. It's actually quite funny to watch them.
So what did you get daddy for Xmas old boy........a new vase ??
Now........you have a really lovely Xmas as well socky. Enjoy watching the Aussies whip the Paki's. Toodle-oo
Originally posted by Blood On The TracksMaybe where you come from socky.
racism now, Champ
Is there no depth that you don't dredge?
Over here it's a term of endearment.
Some nice red roses in that vase would look real nice. Looking forward to visiting my parents and watching the boxing day test with my dad.
Go the Aussies !!!!
ICC Test Rankings:
Put simply, they are a farce. I don't put any stock in them at all. At the moment, there is no genuine #1 side, and every side struggles away from conditions that don't suit them.
England:
They took spoons to a knife fight. They didn't have the tools to win on spinning tracks. Australia will have the same problem. India just never had any scoreboard pressure, and they knew in the 2nd Innings they had a distinct advantage in both batting and bowling.
Mitch Marsh:
I think the selectors wanted him to evolve into either a #6 or 1st Change. Hopefully (but unlikely) a Botham or Flintoff. He really never got going doing either. It happens a lot to Australian all rounders. Steve Smith was picked initially as an all rounder, as was Steve Waugh. Shane Watson came close, but he kept getting injured bowling so stopped. Australia's last genuine all rounder was probably Keith Miller.
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
23 Dec 16
Originally posted by weststigersbobexcellent points
ICC Test Rankings:
Put simply, they are a farce. I don't put any stock in them at all. At the moment, there is no genuine #1 side, and every side struggles away from conditions that don't suit them.
England:
They took spoons to a knife fight. They didn't have the tools to win on spinning tracks. Australia will have the same problem. India just ne ...[text shortened]... ting injured bowling so stopped. Australia's last genuine all rounder was probably Keith Miller.
#1 It isn't me you have to convince, but your fellow Aussie, who is a keen ranker!
#2 absolutely. Since Swann retired, we don't have a class spinner, like any other side, apart from the Asian countries. V difficult to compete on the Indian wickets with that handicap. It is always a different story when India tour over here when, of course, they meet seaming wickets, which they aren't equpped for
#3 Mitch seemed to be ask to do BOTH the #6 and first changer over here 2 years ago. He was just a v good 1 day player then, too much for him. I think his brother has put together some decent scores recently, but , as you say, gets injured a lot. You've got the Brit Renshaw opening now, anyways! (ANYONE must be better than Joe Burns!)
Interesting point about lack of Aussie all rounders ~ I guess Gilchrist was the last genuine one, though he offered a different '2nd skill'! (God, he was a worry when he came in ~ as an England fan!). Maybe Benaud/Davdison, but with batting averages I would think around 25, more bowlers who could bat a bit
Get back to you after Xmas on the Boxing Day test, have a good Christmas
Originally posted by radioactive69"As soon as you started this thread.."
Gee.......you just don't get it. Facts are facts and the fact is Australia are currently ranked no 2 and the fact is England are ranked no 5 and are in free fall. They're dropping faster than Bill Clinton's pants when Monica Lewinsky is around !!!
If Cook retains his captaincy after the trashing England have copped over their last 8 games will be a ...[text shortened]... aten and England have been repeatedly thrashed.
What's daddy got to say about that old boy !!
Man, Pakistan scored 450 (world record) in last innings, India won against England with an amazing world record performance.
Australian fans collectively have had their hearts in their mouths most of the summer.
Thank god S Smith has come into his own as a captain after that humiliation in Hobart. TheAusssie ream would have been in disarray without that leadership...
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
Originally posted by karoly aczelHappy Christmas, Karoly
"As soon as you started this thread.."
Man, Pakistan scored 450 (world record) in last innings, India won against England with an amazing world record performance.
Australian fans collectively have had their hearts in their mouths most of the summer.
Thank god S Smith has come into his own as a captain after that humiliation in Hobart. TheAusssie ream would have been in disarray without that leadership...
You just ignore him, knows nothing about cricket and is as Aussie as a, let me see, hahahaha or bwahahaha, a haggis (private joke between me and champ, to be revealed in new year, he's been very careless)
Onto cricket
Pakistan are just an odd mix. We thought we had them last English summer, beating them easily in 2nd and 3rd tests to go 2-1 up. Then in the last one they came out fighting to level the series.
Didn't Imran Khan say something a long time ago about 'wounded tigers'? That's how the current Pakistan play
Yes, can't take it away from Smith . Annoyingly good!
27 Dec 16
Originally posted by Blood On The TracksHappy xmas
Happy Christmas, Karoly
You just ignore him, knows nothing about cricket and is as Aussie as a, let me see, hahahaha or bwahahaha, a haggis (private joke between me and champ, to be revealed in new year, he's been very careless)
Onto cricket
Pakistan are just an odd mix. We thought we had them last English summer, beating them easily in ...[text shortened]... '? That's how the current Pakistan play
Yes, can't take it away from Smith . Annoyingly good!
Hwo good does your average have to be to be classed as an all-rounder?
Mitchell Johnson must've been close
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
28 Dec 16
Originally posted by karoly aczelAnd a happy new year!
Happy xmas
Hwo good does your average have to be to be classed as an all-rounder?
Mitchell Johnson must've been close
I would say that '30' is the key figure, batting average above it, bowling below. It is quite a tough target, and I would allow a few 'points' either way. For example, best all rounder ever, Garry Sobers, had a bowling average just over 30.
Another, really tough way of judging is to say 'are they worth a place in the side on just either skill?'
That really sorts out the greats. .Sobers was, Miller was, probably Imran Khan and Botham for large parts of their careers. But not players like Kallis (not good enough bowler) and Hadlee(his batting not quite good enough)
I think Mitch doesn't quite get there as a batter, but a dangerous customer at #8!
Incidentally, was there the day England bowled you out for 60 at Trent Bridge last year (sorry!). In the afternoon, when Aussies were bowling, and must have been feeling totally fed up, Mitch J chatted to fans on the boundary edge and signed autographs for kids. Much respect to him for that.
28 Dec 16
All Rounders:
Batting at better than 30
Bowling at better than 35
2000 Test Runs
100 Wickets
The list is:
W.Rhodes (ENG)
KR Miller (AUS)
MH Mankad (India)
GS Sobers (WI)
TL Goddard (RSA)
Imran Khan (PAK)
AW Greig (Eng)
IT Botham (Eng)
Kapil Dev (India)
CL Cairns (NZ)
SM Pollock (RSA)
JH Kallis (RSA)
DL Vettori (NZ)
A. Flintoff (ENG)
Shakib Al Hasan (BAN)
Soon to be joined by R.Ashwin and B.Stokes
Mitchell Johnson :
2065 Runs @ 22.20
313 Wickets @ 28.40
Good Batsman, but not quite world standard all rounder status.
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
28 Dec 16
Originally posted by weststigersbobHi there
All Rounders:
Batting at better than 30
Bowling at better than 35
2000 Test Runs
100 Wickets
The list is:
W.Rhodes (ENG)
KR Miller (AUS)
MH Mankad (India)
GS Sobers (WI)
TL Goddard (RSA)
Imran Khan (PAK)
AW Greig (Eng)
IT Botham (Eng)
Kapil Dev (India)
CL Cairns (NZ)
SM Pollock (RSA)
JH Kallis (RSA)
DL Vettori (NZ)
A. Flintoff (EN ...[text shortened]... s @ 22.20
313 Wickets @ 28.40
Good Batsman, but not quite world standard all rounder status.
That's a fair stance, especially in today's Tests, in which runs are easier to get than wickets.
2 things ~ I would add that batting average should be better than the bowling average (if you see what I mean). I find it hard to class Danny Vettori as a genuine all rounder
Also, it skews very much against older (ie, further back) cricketers , when less Test cricket was played. Notice how only Wilfred Rhodes from your 2000/100 wicket list is pre WW2, and a great many are from the last 30 or so years?
What about players like your own Monty Noble or Aubrey Faulkner (the latter must be THE first great Test all rounder)
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
29 Dec 16
Hi there WTB and KA (and even, for the sake of manners (though god knows why!) ,R
Watching your Test v Pakistan on TV at moment. The MCG is just, well, empty. Why is that? Don't Aussies support test cricket any more.
It is v odd, as the aussie commentators keep saying how many fans are in! V oddly, as it is clearly almost empty
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
29 Dec 16
Originally posted by weststigersbobHi WTB
I added the provision of aggregate runs and wickets to make the list more concise. I agree that it's unfair to exclude guys like Noble and Faulkner (and WG Grace, CB Fry, G Giffen) but the line had to be drawn somewhere.
Your post crossed mine on attendance
It is v difficult to set a definitive 'average' over 150 years. Runs are cheaper now, so bowling average of 32/33 is OK, not so pre war.
Giffen had surprisingly low batting average to me, but maybe not by 130 years ago standards. Grace and Fry more batsmen who bowled, at test standard, anyway