If he average a SR of 120 as a stock bowler and 60 as a strike bowler, bowls an equal amount of both, his SR would average out to 90.
The point of that isn't that he was an idiot. It was a team balance thing.
Sobers did play in an era reknown for very slow batting.
Yeah, Sobers bowling fast on spinning wickets = picking 2 specialist pacers + 2 specialist spinners + Sobers as the third quick. Sobers bowling spin on pacey wickets = picking 4 specialist quicks + Sobers as a spinner.
Sobers did play in an era reknown for very slow batting.
6 5 wkt/innings in 93 tests doesn't really say anything.. Sobers did have a few series where he dominated with both bat and ball.. Only player aside from Botham to get 100 runs + 5 wickets (total in match, not in innings) 7 times..
Nice.. I wonder whether you can estimate speeds based on videos like these..
I'm pretty sure that there are computer programmes which do that kind of thing. However, judging by where the keeper and slips are standing, and by the type of dismissals, I think that low 130s is a safe bet.
Old Wilf's career was bloody long, but it wasn't THAT long.
Thanks for reminding me Sean - I shall finish off my feature on 'Arold, for some unfathomable reason never known as the Glossop Express
No love for Bruce Taylor, then?Yes, the thread title!
So far, I have listed, at various times, Jeffrey Stollmeyer and Khan Mohammad, and endorsed Brian Statham.
Let me add to that Bruce Taylor from New Zealand, who seems to have been a valuable cricketer, especially with the ball. Haven't heard much about him at all, strange considering that New Zealand pace stocks have had few better historically.
I think you know who I mean but will clarify Harold Rhodes. I also forgot to add Snow and Willis in that little lot.
Ha ha indeed, England have produced a fair collection of cricketers named Rhodes. And I imagine that old Wilfred would still have fancied his chances alongside Harold in '59. He was only 81 after all.
