Battle of the ****e

[chaminda_00]

Walker, the fact that Ian got a 50 and took more then 1 wicket per game, gets Walker over the line.

Mind you i can't see Walker giving Jehan a run for his money.

Also i want stats in the future, it too much effort for me to click.

 

[tooextracool]

cant believe people are voting walker. They both have similar test records, but salisbury's is spread over 15 tests(3 times as many as walkers) and most of walkers test came in NZ and SA hardly spinner's paradises while Salisbury played a fair bit in the subcontinent as well as at the Oval. i dont remember salisbury ever bowling a good bowl at the interntional level to be honest.
As far as domestic records are concerned, again they have similar records but one cant help but feel that Salisbury bowling at the oval is completely different from Walker bowling anywhere in NZ.
My vote goes for Salisbury.

 

[Dasa]

Salisbury.

 

[Langeveldt]

Walker

 

[nightprowler10]

Walker.

 

[nightprowler10]

You know, people bugged me to do the same thing in the battle of the subcontinent.

Well this is a bit of a joke battle anyway. The other one was a lot more serious.

 

[Poker Boy]

Sailsbury. Not only did he not take wickets, he usually served up one "help yourself" ball an over. His county record says more about how county batsmen play leg-spin than his ability. If he was Australian i don't think he'd have got into a state team.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sailsbury. Not only did he not take wickets, he usually served up one "help yourself" ball an over. His county record says more about how county batsmen play leg-spin than his ability. If he was Australian i don't think he'd have got into a state team.

I think he would have, at least for a little while. He did well in grade cricket here, and his record for Surrey is fine. I doubt he would have been successful in Australian domestic cricket , but he would have got a game.

Certainly wouldn't have played for Australia though. Salisbury for me.

 

[chaminda_00]

I think he would have, at least for a little while. He did well in grade cricket here, and his record for Surrey is fine. I doubt he would have been successful in Australian domestic cricket , but he would have got a game.

Certainly wouldn't have played for Australia though. Salisbury for me.

Yeah i remember when NSW picked Adrian Tucker, Salisbury was like the leading wicket taker in grade cricket. Probably would have a got a few games, but been dropped very quickly, if he bowled like he did at Test level.

 

[aussie tragic]

Ian Salsibury

 

[GIMH]

Salisbury

 

[BoyBrumby]

Go the patriotic route & vote Salisbury. I remember missing his only wicket (ironically Murali) at The Oval v SL in 1998 'cos I was having a slash. Murali took 16 in that game....

 

[shortpitched713]

Walker. I've seen Salisbury play and he's not that bad.

 

[marc71178]

Salisbury here as well.

 

[Xuhaib]

Hoping that Sami goes all the way.

 

[thierry henry]

Speaking of James Franklin does he deserve to be on that list. I always drea the time he is brought on in ODIs and after his first couple of overs in tests i also dread the rest of his spells.

errr....70 test wickets at 28...easily our best test bowler of the last 2 years...I'm afraid the answer is no

 

[syl]

Salisbury

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Ian Salisbury

 

[Nate]

Walker.

 

[TT Boy]

Walker takes it and he advances into the next round.

Next battle will be up here later on tonight.