Players who would suck now

[Nikhil99.94]

( A man who cannot play off the back foot against targeted short bowling is worth questioning dispassionately.)

It is time to bring up the fact that bradman averaged 56.57 in the bodyline series at strike rate of 74 whereas McCabe averaged 42 at a strike rate of 59.Just look a video on YouTube of Miller and compton speaking Miller says you don’t bowl bumper to fellas like bradman because it’s a waste of a delivery it’s 4 everytime.

 

[Gnske]

Wasn't Miller a drunk though. Hard to gage the accuracy of that assessment

 

[Gob]

Wasn't Miller a drunk though. Hard to gage the accuracy of that assessment

I don't think they let you become a fighter pilot if you are a drunk. Explains why you aren't one of them

 

[Line and Length]

Wasn't Miller a drunk though. Hard to gage the accuracy of that assessment

Keith Miller was a fine all-rounder who performed on a needs basis, When a game was in the balance he could tilt the scales. He wasn't interested in one-sided games as is exemplified by his dismissal for a duck when the Invincibles scored 721 in a single day.
He had a good knowledge of the game and he would often walk around the outer and chat with spectators about the current game they were watching.
I wouldn't be so dismissive of The Nugget's assessment.

 

[Gnske]

I don't think they let you become a fighter pilot if you are a drunk. Explains why you aren't one of them

It's fair to say flying bombers for half a decade and watching boys get shot down by Hitler preceded the drunkenness. As it so often does.

 

[Nikhil99.94]

(Wasn't Miller a drunk though. Hard to gage the accuracy of that assessment)

A person who could not play short bowling wouldnt average 56 at a strike rate of 74 ,mainly to stop/attack him against larwood,voce ,Allen and verity as a spinner with Hammond as the 5th bowler when McCabe ,one of greatest players ever of short ball averaged 42 at a strike rate of 59.

People call viv dominated a attack when he averaged 50 at strike rate of 70 whereas ,bradman did better than that and people call he failed,that shows the player bradman was.

 

[Gob]

It's fair to say flying bombers for half a decade and watching boys get shot down by Hitler preceded the drunkenness. As it so often does.

I'm a drunk without any of that. Depends on the person

 

[Gob]

I can only surmise that JBMAC's memory is like a VHS tape that has been rewinded too many times to the Sharon Stone scene in Basic Instict. He's gone back so many times it's all just fuzzy now.

I made that original post while smashed but I'm going to stand by it.

Which scene? There is a scene where if you freeze at the right moment, you can see mike Douglas's penis. That's the most rewinded moment for me

 

[andruid]

Back in the Halcyon days of this forum, a poster claimed that Bradman would not have survived this era because he would be flumoxxed by the speed of a mid career Ishant Sharma and bedazzled by the devilry of Virender Sehwag's spin.

 

[Bolo.]

Back in the Halcyon days of this forum, a poster claimed that Bradman would not have survived this era because he would be flumoxxed by the speed of a mid career Ishant Sharma and bedazzled by the devilry of Virender Sehwag's spin.

This selection of bad bowlers chosen to belittle the great man is kinda farcical. Of course he would not have done so well as a bat as he did in his era.

But I am very confident, that, had he grown up playing in this era, he would have averaged 50+ against the shitty version of Ishant and Sehwag. Even against a decent attack, I think he would be averaging 30+, probably 40+ against the weakest bowling lineups.

Which may not be great, but if you consider how effective the left arm express that he would no doubt be bowling in the modern era would be (my comprehensive statistical analysis puts his estimated bowling average as a LAF somewhere between 18.14 and 18.27), he would have still been a fantastic player.

Lets have no more criticism of him please. My stats are undeniably correct.

 

[ma1978]

seeing old and grainy videos of Bradman, the guy was ridiculous. Had a shot selection like no other at that time or even of the modern eras. Played the shots of an aggressive prime Tendulkar, Richards or Lara with far less risk. No one would average a 100 today but he would easily be the best player of the modern era by a margin and this is a swag but would average 70s.

 

[thierry henry]

He wasn't interested in one-sided games as is exemplified by his dismissal for a duck when the Invincibles scored 721 in a single day.

There it is, the trademark of great cricketers, gentlemen and scholars of the golden age: getting out on purpose

 

[thierry henry]

The actual answer to the thread is: Gavin Larsen

 

[Red]

We’re pretty fortunate to have someone of JBMac’s caliber in the forum.

Trolling has its place and all but I reckon more respect could be afforded to him than this crap.

 

[thierry henry]

We’re pretty fortunate to have someone of JBMac’s caliber in the forum.

Trolling has its place and all but I reckon more respect could be afforded to him than this crap.

Can someone actually clarify, is he John MacLean? It doesn’t mesh with his latest claim about his age or seeing Bradman live. Or is JBMac being John MacLean just a running joke.

 

[Adders]

JBmac to my knowledge doesn't appear to want his real name posted around this forum which is totally fair enough.....how many of us do?

We should stop asking and trying to second guess him and just take him at his word ffs. And agree with RH......show the bloke some respect.

 

[thierry henry]

oh yeah absolutely I didn’t mean anyone should ‘reveal themselves’ I just wasn’t sure whether in this particular case it was accepted CW knowledge

 

[SteveNZ]

The actual answer to the thread is: Gavin Larsen

This is true. Gavin Larsen would go for 12 an over in both the 50 over and T20 formats, and his middle namesake Rolf Harris would be closer to the national side than him.

I don't have an answer to this, given I didn't see these sort of guys back in the day. But would someone like Derek Underwood have been nearly as effective?

 

[Chubb]

This is true. Gavin Larsen would go for 12 an over in both the 50 over and T20 formats, and his middle namesake Rolf Harris would be closer to the national side than him.

I don't have an answer to this, given I didn't see these sort of guys back in the day. But would someone like Derek Underwood have been nearly as effective?

I think Underwood would still have been an effective spinner but averaging in the low 30s rather than mid 20s. He was famously deadly on wet wickets but not exactly cannon fodder when it wasn't wet, he was a fine bowler in all conditions and the DRS would help him, as it did for Swann. He would not have those completely unplayable spells he used to bowl, outside of India perhaps, but still be test level.

 

[Migara]

This is true. Gavin Larsen would go for 12 an over in both the 50 over and T20 formats, and his middle namesake Rolf Harris would be closer to the national side than him.

I don't have an answer to this, given I didn't see these sort of guys back in the day. But would someone like Derek Underwood have been nearly as effective?

Larsen is way more skillful than people realize or give him the credit. This is a bowler who cut his pace down and changed the pace to provide no pace for the batsmen, and he was way ahead of his peers. He bowled in one or two tests and was proper fast medium hitting high 130s. Today's world he' would probably bulk up, add 5k more to his pace and keep on changing the pace he used to do. He is one of the greatest pure restrictive bowlers in the history f the game.