lol, the nickname 'The Prince' had absolutely nothing to do with his cricket, buddy. In fact I created it before he had played a single international match.Awful thread. Almost as bad as the one the Australians here created where they proclaimed Phil Hughes “The Prince” and were considering would it be 60 or a 70 test match batting average he would end up with.
Why? I am not passing a judgement that Philander would be as good as McGrath, just eliciting opinions whether he will be able to sustain his great performance over longer periods ala the pigeonAwful thread. Almost as bad as the one the Australians here created where they proclaimed Phil Hughes “The Prince” and were considering would it be 60 or a 70 test match batting average he would end up with.
ThisI'm probably Philander's greatest admirer on this forum, but even I'd say that let's not get carried away. A few more games and a couple more years are needed before passing a judgment.
That said, he comes across more as a swing and seam exponent than a back-of-the-length unbelievably accurate metronome that McGrath was. A swing bowler would tend to concede more runs than the McGrath, Ambrose types and you'll find that reflected in their average.
He played a few limited over games and did not look 'THAT' good to play the test cricket. When he was selected, I was like WTF, why Philander? The guy is good though. Lets see how he bowls in England.Does anyone know why Philander had to wait so long to get a test cap? He is already 26 and a great FC record too