Would love to see you make a case for Bracken > GarnerNathan Bracken. arguably the best ODI bowler of all time.
138 wickets at 21.90 with an E/R of 4.37 in this day and age is bloody impressive. Would actually make for a reasonable argument IMO.Would love to see you make a case for Bracken > Garner![]()
Impressive no doubt, one of the best, but doesn't come close to Garner.138 wickets at 21.90 with an E/R of 4.37 in this day and age is bloody impressive. Would actually make for a reasonable argument IMO.
Well he certainly had a better Test career than Michael Bevan.Fair dinkum, how does Dean Jones get a spot? I know he was a fine ODI player, but God he was an overrated test player.
I guess. Could probably make an semi-decent argument though, what with bat technology/ground sizes/flat pitches and all that in this eraImpressive no doubt, one of the best, but doesn't come close to Garner.
Not sure whom the other three should be, but I'd prefer:BTW we could add 3 more players such as Bracken, Watson [I suppose] and someone else..
So than it's 72, so 24 x 3 >> 12 x 2 >> 4 x 3 >> 2 x 2 >> 1 x 2.
I think we went back and forth about that the first time around and decided it shouldn't be just Test cricket.Well Jones was picked for his one day career i would say..
Or when the judging starts do we just factor in Test Cricket?
Pretty bad that I don't even know Charlie Turner, hmm.
Haha, can you ever get my name right?Yes, Yes NP101, Go ahead please.
Take your pick fromNot sure whom the other three should be, but I'd prefer:
24 x 3 > 8 x 3 > 4 x 2 > 2 x 2 > 1 x 2
I think that makes sense.