ataraxia
International Coach
Does that mean you rank Gary Kirsten over Barry Richards?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Fast Bowler Survival - 2020 edition
- Thread starter stephen
- Start date
bagapath
International Captain
In tests, of course. How could a guy who played four tests can even be compared to a player with 20+ centuries?
B Richards and Procter were great first class cricketers. They might’ve achieved as much as Viv Richards and Ian Botham. They did not get the opportunity so they did not achieve. They belong to the “might have” category. Ranking them above real achievers like Botham is blasphemy.
Procter might have fallen away and ended up only as good as Botham. But its a pretty big 'might have' given the fact he gave little indication of doing it (early at least), and the fact Botham demonstrably did so.
Nobody is claiming that Botham didnt have a more accomplished test career. And if you want to rate him ahead on this basis, nobody is complaining. But these werent set as the parameters for the excersize, and if others are choosing different parameters, that is fine too.
Nobody is claiming that Botham didnt have a more accomplished test career. And if you want to rate him ahead on this basis, nobody is complaining. But these werent set as the parameters for the excersize, and if others are choosing different parameters, that is fine too.
bagapath
International Captain
He might have had ****** career after his debut year and ended up as Hiwani also...
bagapath
International Captain
that is exactly what I have been saying. what are the parameters? is this a list of first class cricketers? then it is fine. is it for test cricket? then why is a seven test veteran even considered?
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bowlers had to be nominated and they had to have played tests. I then arranged the bowlers into groups and asked people to rate those bowlers as they saw fit. Then I compiled the results and around half the bowlers progressed in each round until the final four, who had a semi final and the a grand/ consolation final.
I left how to rate those bowlers deliberately vague so that people would be free to rate players based on first class records as much as tests if they wanted to.
You should have participated in the voting man
.
bagapath
International Captain
hahahah...Bowlers had to be nominated and they had to have played tests. I then arranged the bowlers into groups and asked people to rate those bowlers as they saw fit. Then I compiled the results and around half the bowlers progressed in each round until the final four, who had a semi final and the a grand/ consolation final.
I left how to rate those bowlers deliberately vague so that people would be free to rate players based on first class records as much as tests if they wanted to.
You should have participated in the voting man
see... I am under lockdown... tired of zoom meetings... angry and helpless with the world... I want to explode... please fight with me... don't be nice to me...
If Chris Martin had batted as many times as Sachin he may have ended up the greater bat. Some assumptions fall within a reasonable range, and some dont.
Assuming Procter would have been equal to or better than Botham in tests is very reasonable, although we cant be sure.
Anyway, lots of people judge players at the top level of competition available to them. Grace gets extremely highly rated by many people, in spite of his achievements coming in a FC system that would get crushed by top school teams today, and having been mediocre in tests due to lack of opportunity at the right age.
Procter outperformed Botham by a massive margin at every level available to him, including the one competition they both played. Saying Botham had the greater career is fine based on the number of tests he played. Saying he was the better bowler despite all evidence to the contrary is silly.
Procters good year was not a year as you are stating btw. He played in 67, 69/70 and WSC in 78/79. There is a huge difference between a year long purple patch and performing over 12 years, even if all these games could concievably have fitted into a single year.
bagapath
International Captain
he could have ****ed up and ended up having an inferior career to botham, too. also a equally reasonable assumption.
all that I am saying is, we can't compare them. because we don't know enough. not many fast bowlers take five fers and ten fers on the dust bowls of India. Botham did. Procter might have got slaughtered there. or done well. we don't know. so no point in comparing them.
Shady Slim
International Coach
when if's and but's become wheat crops and nuts only then can we end world hunger but i feel the point of being in the rank every fast bowler ever thread is you're allowed to use your personal expectations for how those old saffer players would go if they had full careers
like i don't know a thing about them so i'm not going to comment either which way but i feel this is an issue reasonable minds can differ on and the whole point of being on a cricket discussion board is you can speculate on how his career would have gone
like i don't know a thing about them so i'm not going to comment either which way but i feel this is an issue reasonable minds can differ on and the whole point of being on a cricket discussion board is you can speculate on how his career would have gone
Disagree that it is an equally reasonable assumption- all evidence points to the contrary, although, like I said, we cant be sure. But it doesnt really matter either way. The fact that he was better than Botham in every form of the game they both played is enough reason to rate him ahead. Nobody is complaining if you go a different route and go with Botham though- you are the only person that seems to have an issue on a difference of opinion on this one.
No telling how any untested quick will perform in the SC. Procter has an advantage(especially on dust bowls, which most were not) because he was a sucessful spinner in the pace countries, but even then, we cant be sure. Anywhere from bad to excellent seem equally plausible, and its a bit luck of the draw anyway given how infrequently non-SC teams used to tour
bagapath
International Captain
i am not even going to go as far to claim that botham is a superior test cricketer to mike procter. from the evidence we have, i can only say that botham was a great test cricketer who faded away in the second half of his career. procter never had a career. so there is no comparison possible at all.
i can also say that procter would have been slaughtered in the subcontinent. and there is no way you can disprove it, because i am just speculating. i can name so many fast bowlers who never made the cut in india to support that argument. but i wont do that because it would still be baseless, as baseless as anyone claiming procter "would have done well over a long career". i am not ranking procter below botham. i am just not ranking procter. his greatness in international cricket is just bollocks. he played seven games. it means nothing.
i can also say that procter would have been slaughtered in the subcontinent. and there is no way you can disprove it, because i am just speculating. i can name so many fast bowlers who never made the cut in india to support that argument. but i wont do that because it would still be baseless, as baseless as anyone claiming procter "would have done well over a long career". i am not ranking procter below botham. i am just not ranking procter. his greatness in international cricket is just bollocks. he played seven games. it means nothing.
