honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
depends on how you view it. I think there is more of a chance of a talented player coming through if 10 guys took to a game than 2 did..quantity =/= quality
depends on how you view it. I think there is more of a chance of a talented player coming through if 10 guys took to a game than 2 did..quantity =/= quality
The comments aren't worthy of the article.The comments less so but then again the comments section of any website is a slag-scooper of opinion of the most effective kind.
This.Also, gotta mention Sourav Ganguly here. Took us out of the match fixing era with a bang. It is conveniently forgotten how little cricket was viewed and how disinterested were viewers with cricket in India around that time, inspite of having Tendulkar around. Ganguly's captaincy just brought a new perspective on cricket to India. And that 2001 series is a watershed moment in Indian cricket.
Wally Hammond and Sutcliffe's records are also strikingly brilliant. Did Sutcliffe get overshadowed by Hobbs?Yeah, they've just put up the feature on Bradman. The statistical analysis article is a great read.
See, I don't know that he did. He was such an egregious talent I don't necessarily think he changed the way lesser mortals play. He scored more quickly and more copiously than those before & (wrt the lattter) since, but should John Q Batsman seek to ape him he'd probably come unstuck.Bradman, because he revolutionised the art of batting.
can't tell about others, but it was true for me at least...Also, gotta mention Sourav Ganguly here. Took us out of the match fixing era with a bang. It is conveniently forgotten how little cricket was viewed and how disinterested were viewers with cricket in India around that time, inspite of having Tendulkar around. Ganguly's captaincy just brought a new perspective on cricket to India. And that 2001 series is a watershed moment in Indian cricket.
Exactly, I made a similar point before in this thread...See, I don't know that he did. He was such an egregious talent I don't necessarily think he changed the way lesser mortals play. He scored more quickly and more copiously than those before & (wrt the lattter) since, but should John Q Batsman seek to ape him he'd probably come unstuck.
Yeah, thats true. We now have to put up with.....Graeme SwannWarne has had a lasting impact on how I watch the game nowadays. Just seems less exciting. Dreaming Warne loses a side-bet at a poker table or something and comes out of retirement.
Without question he was. Sutcliffe's innings in Melbourne in 28-29 (Hobbs too) plainly one of the great wet wicket knocks, if not the greatest.Wally Hammond and Sutcliffe's records are also strikingly brilliant. Did Sutcliffe get overshadowed by Hobbs?
A question for someone who knows more.See, I don't know that he did. He was such an egregious talent I don't necessarily think he changed the way lesser mortals play. He scored more quickly and more copiously than those before & (wrt the lattter) since, but should John Q Batsman seek to ape him he'd probably come unstuck.
I stand to be corrected but I think it was a far more closed grip, which theoretically means he should have had trouble playing to the off side, though he didn't.A question for someone who knows more.
How did Bradman's grip differ from the normal one? I remember that he showed it to Greg Chappell who then went on to use it.
When referring to the normal grip, I'm saying the "Make a V down the back of the bat", etc.
If we're talking about captains, then I'll put in Allan Border: brought a tough-as-nails attitude to captaincy and towards the opposition, not giving an inch and never backing down or giving in. That's Australia's attitude to the game to this day, tbh.Clive Lloyd as captain, perhaps? Dispensed with spinners more or less completely, Sir Viv's mildly ropey offies aside. CBA to check, but it'd be interesting to know how many games he captained where the XI didn't have a specialist twirler in.
Of course there is, but do you see that quality of fast bowling in India atm? And with the few exceptions, how many of them have actually been truly inspired to pick up fast bowling by Kapil?depends on how you view it. I think there is more of a chance of a talented player coming through if 10 guys took to a game than 2 did..
Have grown a great deal of respect and awe for Wally Hammond since the scorecard draft when I chanced to read up on him..Without question he was. Sutcliffe's innings in Melbourne in 28-29 (Hobbs too) plainly one of the great wet wicket knocks, if not the greatest.
What a player he must have been.
From Srinath to Zak, they havementioned him. Harbhajan said he was inspired by Kapil and tried fast bowling only to realize he was not cut out for it. But you never know, he may not have played the game but for Kapil. Sidhu has mentioned being inspired by Kapil more than Gavaskar.Of course there is, but do you see that quality of fast bowling in India atm? And with the few exceptions, how many of them have actually been truly inspired to pick up fast bowling by Kapil?