Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Why notYou really want to play Don at 6? I'm really thinking whether I can take you seriously or not.
Why notYou really want to play Don at 6? I'm really thinking whether I can take you seriously or not.
You want to play the greatest number 3 batsman of all time (by a light year difference) at 6. That's quite telling.Why not
He is Greatest number 6 tooYou want to play the greatest number 3 batsman of all time (by a light year difference) at 6. That's quite telling.
By playing 6 matches at no.6?He is Greatest number 6 too
Its stupid, if you think Bradman wouldn't be greatest number 6.By playing 6 matches at no.6?
You are only going by averages. It's stupid.
Would be doesn't mean he is.Its stupid, if you think Bradman wouldn't be greatest number 6.
Why not?Would be doesn't mean he is.
And I'm not arguing he'd fail at number 6
He wouldn't. But do you really think the team would be better if Bradman plays at no.6 instead of no.3?
Let me say best instead of successful, but I think the SA team from immediately after the Australian stretch.Just curious.
Who is that third most successful team in last 50 years? WI is one and Aus team is the other.
He would be. But you would also be wasting a lot of resources as he racks up a pile of not outs. I want him at 3 to dictate the batting early.Its stupid, if you think Bradman wouldn't be greatest number 6.
OkHe would be. But you would also be wasting a lot of resources as he racks up a pile of not outs. I want him at 3 to dictate the batting early.
He's just taking the piss out of you for your "average at each position" type thinking for your side.Would be doesn't mean he is.
And I'm not arguing he'd fail at number 6
He wouldn't. But do you really think the team would be better if Bradman plays at no.6 instead of no.3?
That's my point actually.He's just taking the piss out of you for your "average at each position" type thinking for your side.
Viv averaged higher at 3 than 5 because he was a better batsman when he was batting there, not because of some kind of inherent technical or psychological reason.
Read before you speak.Viv was at his prime when he played at no.3, that explains the gap in average. Guess I can switch Viv and Sachin, as Viv was a better player of pace. Viv would average higher at no.4 if he had played in that position in his prime anyway.
He was replying to earlier posts when you thought about dropping Viv because he wasn't very good at 5, such as the OP.That's my point actually.
Read before you speak.
Disagree.@Prince EWS and PFK is serious about playing Bradman at 6. He's not taking a piss.
I never thought Viv wasn't good enough. If I had to replace him with someone else, I'd change him with either of Kallis or Hammond, and they don't average very high at no.5.He was replying to earlier posts when you thought about dropping Viv because he wasn't very good at 5, such as the OP.
Disagree.
Doesn't this post look like he's actually serious about playing Bradman at 6?Its stupid, if you think Bradman wouldn't be greatest number 6.
No.Doesn't this post look like he's actually serious about playing Bradman at 6?