I agree. Let’s stop watching the cricket and decide everything based on statsguruJust because you like watching one player more doesn’t make them better.
I agree. Let’s stop watching the cricket and decide everything based on statsguruJust because you like watching one player more doesn’t make them better.
Hadlee was a delight to watch. Perfect accuracy, could move the ball and could ratchet up the speed at will.If anything if it comes down to style, thats the one area where Sachin would beat Hadlee handily. Hadlee was a boring corridor bowler.
What's more exciting than edges flying to slip?If anything if it comes down to style, thats the one area where Sachin would beat Hadlee handily. Hadlee was a boring corridor bowler.
lolI agree. Let’s stop watching the cricket and decide everything based on statsguru
Imran was quite accurate, Waqar was not.Style is very subjective. For some a metronome like Mcgrath could be awesome to watch for his accuracy and precision, for some bowlers like Imran, Waqar for sudden exaggerated movement, who instead of accuracy can run through an opposition in one spell. Further this applies to batting as well. One person may admire the Waughs, Dravids for their gritty resistance, others may admire Lara etc for strokemaking, poise and elegance.
no brother you have to suck the life out of the sport with atg comparisons instead, dont you kno?god forbid we actually enjoy the cricket
agreed, but my point was style is subjectiveImran was quite accurate, Waqar was not.
Right after Imran came back in the side as a tear away quick in about 1974 I believe (after his first stint as a medium pacer failed ), he actually wasn't accurate at all. Once he combined the two of speed with accuracy, by the late 70s/early 80s, is when he really achieved his unmatched peak.Imran was quite accurate, Waqar was not.