1) Barrington and Boycott
2) Bradman and Lara
Not really. Didn't someone on here mention his sticky wicket average was 16? He wouldn't have lasted the third day.The rules state that you can't pick Bradman or everyone would have done so for every scenario under the sun.
Hey this is Cricket Web, if Bradman's available, he's in.Not really. Didn't someone on here mention his sticky wicket average was 16? He wouldn't have lasted the third day.
Most have picked him for scenario 1 where scoring 200 doesn't matter.Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hobbs only pass 200 once in Tests? It's bizarre that he's such a popular bet.
The rules state that you can't pick Bradman or everyone would have done so for every scenario under the sun.
I didn't do a Scenario 3.Scenario 3: Pick the same two above scenarios but the players can't be from the country you support (and can't be Bradman).
You can't pick Bradman for any of them.I didn't do a Scenario 3.
Well, scoring a double century is so rare that it's far from a guarantee for even those who've done it a lot. So I just went by my opinion of the best batsmen of all time after Bradman (which I think were Hobbs and Sobers), and picked them. A couple people picked Waugh even though he doesn't have a single double, but I don't think thats a horrible pick either.Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hobbs only pass 200 once in Tests? It's bizarre that he's such a popular bet.
But in scenarios like this, surely what they did in their career of often 10-15+ years should be the biggest factor?Well, scoring a double century is so rare that it's far from a guarantee for even those who've done it a lot. So I just went by my opinion of the best batsmen of all time after Bradman (which I think were Hobbs and Sobers), and picked them. A couple people picked Waugh even though he doesn't have a single double, but I don't think thats a horrible pick either.
Waugh scored 200 vs. the West Indies in 1995.Well, scoring a double century is so rare that it's far from a guarantee for even those who've done it a lot. So I just went by my opinion of the best batsmen of all time after Bradman (which I think were Hobbs and Sobers), and picked them. A couple people picked Waugh even though he doesn't have a single double, but I don't think thats a horrible pick either.
But there are some batsmen, who though great, are (or were) never likely to score double hundreds. A great batsman is not, by default, capable of scoring a double hundred. There's a lot more than skill involved in it.Well, scoring a double century is so rare that it's far from a guarantee for even those who've done it a lot. So I just went by my opinion of the best batsmen of all time after Bradman (which I think were Hobbs and Sobers), and picked them. A couple people picked Waugh even though he doesn't have a single double, but I don't think thats a horrible pick either.
Oh , you're right. I just read the scenarios not the bottom part.You can't pick Bradman for any of them.
Of the Dave variety is that?1. Kallis/Boycott
2. Lara/Border
3. Kallis/Mohammed