Welcome friendI used to totally go along with the Barrington was not that great thing but I just can't see any reason for this now.
Not furious, but surprisedSome would be furious that Kallis is ranked ahead of Pollock, Chappell, Sangakarra, Border et al.
I'd probably have Chappell over Border usually, but only if you include his WSC exploits. Harder to justify for a "only Tests count" list.I am furious that Greg Chappell has been ranked ahead of Border.
Yeah, I've found that is what also pushes him up for me. If you could thrive in that environment, you have to be special.I'd probably have Chappell over Border usually, but only if you include his WSC exploits. Harder to justify for a "only Tests count" list.
Not just Kallis, but Ponting as well.Some would be furious that Kallis is ranked ahead of Pollock, Chappell, Sangakarra, Border et al.
If Hammond was playing right now with bats bigger than trees and batsman walking in grounds with 10kg of safety equipment he would be averaging 75+ as well.If Ponting or Smith were playing back then, they'd have averaged 75+ imo.
Lets be real modern athletes are ****ing trainwrecks mentally.It might be true that modern players are physically stronger. But what about mentally? It's the mental side of things that makes the greats.
Modern players are probably not physically stronger than Hammond anyway. Walter was 6 ft 2-3 inch guy built like an absolute tank. Arguably the best physique among any cricketer.It might be true that modern players are physically stronger. But what about mentally? It's the mental side of things that makes the greats.
peak boomer takeLets be real modern athletes are ****ing trainwrecks mentally.
Nah this is completely wrong. Hutton faced extremely strong Australia attacks in 1948, 50/51 and 53 which had some combination of Lindwall/Miller/Johnson/Johnston/Toshack/Davidson/Benaud and did well in all of those series. Those attacks are as good or better on paper than anything Viv succeeded against in his career imo.Never said he didn't, but not as good as what Viv and Lara in particular faced.
Lindwall and Miller, Ramadhin and Valentine, a little of Davidson.
Again, he also didn't dominate any of those attacks.
Have to disagree on that one, just based on the fact that he played in a weak era with the flattest of of pitches and still didn't average 75.If Hammond was playing right now with bats bigger than trees and batsman walking in grounds with 10kg of safety equipment he would be averaging 75+ as well.
Did say he didn't score well, and again, I think he's the 8th best batsman of all time. I'm saying if he was criticized in his own era for again, not dominating the attacks and sometimes being dictated by them and not setting the tempo, that's a slight negative in my book.Nah this is completely wrong. Hutton faced extremely strong Australia attacks in 1958, 50/51 and 53 which had some combination of Lindwall/Miller/Johnson/Johnston/Toshack/Davidson/Benaud and did well in all of those series. Those attacks are as good or better on paper than anything Viv succeeded against in his career imo.
In the 1953 Ashes, he got ~450 runs @55 when no player from either side managed even an average of 40.
In the 50/51 Ashes, he scored 533@88 in a very low scoring series where the rest of the English batsmen got dominated ( no one from his team averaged 40). How does this not count as a dominant series? Just because he didn't hit enough fours? It's one of the most impressive batting series against a great attack in cricket history.
lol. a boomer would just let that pass through to the keeper instead of being taunted into a rash response like this.peak boomer take