subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Meaning?Yeah this is the other school of thought that is just objectively wrong because it doesn't scale.
Meaning?Yeah this is the other school of thought that is just objectively wrong because it doesn't scale.
?What a magnificent cricketer.
By the start of the war he was arguably the 3rd greatest batsman ever, arguably the best all rounder
Why wouldn't I read every post in a thread I'm really interested in?Nobody forced you to read them ig.
@honestbharani is a big fan and also rates Simon Katich.Bringing Shane Watson to the party
3731 runs @ 35.19 & 75 wkts @ 33.68 (1.3 WPM)
That's why only judging players by test stats sucks.Interesting that Frank Woolley had an overwhelming win to be voted in #35, but Shane Watson has a very similar record yet only received 1 vote
Woolley 64 Tests
3283 runs @ 36.07, 5 hundreds, 23 fifties
83 wkts @ 33.91, 4 5fers (1.30 WPM)
Watson 59 Tests
3731 runs @ 35.19, 4 hundreds, 23 fifties
75 wkts @ 33.68, 3 5fers (1.27 WPM)
But when the poll is about Test all rounders then test stats are the only figures that matter.That's why only judging players by test stats sucks.
So what else are you judging Wooley on as no-one here seen him play in the 1920's. At least we know Watson could have been a much better bowler if not for constant injury and his time as opener was much better than his overall career average.That's why only judging players by test stats sucks.
In addition to his FC record, Woolley had a long test career which nerfs his averages and was a good slip too.Interesting that Frank Woolley had an overwhelming win to be voted in #35, but Shane Watson has a very similar record yet only received 1 vote
Woolley 64 Tests
3283 runs @ 36.07, 5 hundreds, 23 fifties
83 wkts @ 33.91, 4 5fers (1.30 WPM)
Watson 59 Tests
3731 runs @ 35.19, 4 hundreds, 23 fifties
75 wkts @ 33.68, 3 5fers (1.27 WPM)
Yeah this is a test only list, and definitely agree there are players in the list already who shouldn't have been there (I myself voted for Procter, and I apologize for that)But when the poll is about Test all rounders then test stats are the only figures that matter.
Nobody here saw Don Bradman, that is not stopping anyone from rating him.So what else are you judging Wooley on as no-one here seen him play in the 1920's. At least we know Watson could of been a much better bowler if not for constant injury and his time as opener was much better than his overall career average.
As I understand it FC record has nothing to do with this poll. Anyway I wasn't saying Woolley shouldn't be picked, just surprised Watson hadn't received any votes with a similar recordIn addition to his FC record, Woolley had a long test career which nerfs his averages and was a good slip too.