And yet you have no compunction with picking Hutton everytime despite their careers overlapping. Don’t wanna derail this promising thread but this sort of **** pisses me off to no end.
I personally pick him as a sort of insurance, *maybe* Hutton and Sutcliffe were better but might as well have at least one opener who actually played pace beyond 110 kph.
Well, good thing both Adcock and Lindwall are dead and can't read this.I personally pick him as a sort of insurance, *maybe* Hutton and Sutcliffe were better but might as well have at least one opener who actually played pace beyond 110 kph.
But what is Gavasker gonna do when he comes against a great Spinner(I personally pick him as a sort of insurance), *maybe* Hutton and Sutcliffe were better but might as well have at least one opener who actually played pace beyond 110 kph.
?It would be better to pick a modern opener as a sort of insurance imo.
Hobbs can play the spinners given that's the same pace the Pacers in his time were bowling anyway.But what is Gavasker gonna do when he comes against a great Spinner
Didn’t knew you saw McDonald or Gregory bowl.That’s the same thing people will say after 50 years abt gavasker.
Hutton did play against the post war Aussie pacers tbf to him which might be the tiebreaker for him.
Pretty sure Bradman mentioned that the bowlers of his time maxed out at 107 Kph thus making run scoring really easy in his time.
This for me
Source? Larwood was regarded as very quick. Spinners can push their flatter deliveries through at 107kph off a couple of steps.
