steds
Hall of Fame Member
No, you've got it the wrong way around. He's a legend, but he isn't good.Go_India said:Ok i have had enough, stop playing jokes on our bowler. He is excellent, maybe not a legend yet.
No, you've got it the wrong way around. He's a legend, but he isn't good.Go_India said:Ok i have had enough, stop playing jokes on our bowler. He is excellent, maybe not a legend yet.
Actually, he is a very good ODI player, averages 27.33 with the ball.steds said:No, you've got it the wrong way around. He's a legend, but he isn't good.
LOL! when I saw the battle! I though of the exact same. And I agree tooBarney Rubble said:Ashes to Ashes,
Dust to dust,
If Lillee don't get you,
Thommo must.
Same vote for me for similar reasons - despite his apparent fondness for wanting to kill anything wearing a baggy green cap, Larwood seems, from what I've seen and read, to be quite a decent person; in stark contrast to Jardine, who's simply evil. On a cricketing note, I haven't seen terribly much of either but I don't think the gap would have been particularly great.BoyBrumby said:Ha-ha-ha!!
I've got a pretty good idea along which lines the voting on this battle is going to be divided! Larwood was a very good bowler who had one great series. Tragically, for one reason or another, he never played for England again after 32/33. Thomson was the junior partner in Australia's fastest opening pair. I'm sure the barrage Lillian Thomson served up was every bit as potentially leathal as Lol's bumpers way back when, admittedly without the leg theory field to back it up tho.
Ultimately I'm voting for Larwood tho, partly because of 33 wickets @ 19.52 but mainly because he came across as a decent man of quiet dignity & Thommo, frankly, doesn't.
EDIT: Just seen Rubble's vote. Splitter!!