Favourite Bunnies

[thierry henry]

Hang on, why is everyone using "greater than" to indicate being someone's bunny? Cullinan greater than Warne? I don't think so.

Seriously, some other ones. Gillespie seems to get Tendulkar out rather frequently. Warne had it all over Giles during the Ashes. Nobody's mentioned Harbhajan's domination of Ponting yet, either.

How about reverse-bunny situations? Where an otherwise quality bowler who is performing against a particular team gets taken apart by a certain bowler?

Recent examples that come to mind are Hayden > Harbhajan and Gilchrist > Vettori. Sehwag > McGrath might just qualify, particularly if they play another series against each other. Lara's always had the best of Warne as well, although that seems to be changing just recently.

Fleming and Murali. Fleming has scored 274 against him, 174 against him, and single handedly hit him for about 50 runs in 3 overs in the first FICA world XI game last year.

Also true about Gilly v Vettori. Most batsman who play Vettori in an attacking manner succeed imo.

 

[tooextracool]

Likewise, Flintoff dismissed Gilchrist a no. of times early on the Ashes series but by the time the Surper Series had finished, it could be argued that Gilchrist was starting to get on top of Flintoff..

because he got on flintoff for all of one innings......
not to mention 1 that was pretty much an exhibition game.

 

[Nate]

Bracken > Sehwag
Bracken > Tendulkar

 

[Top_Cat]

because he got on flintoff for all of one innings......
not to mention 1 that was pretty much an exhibition game.

Yep exactly; context matters. Flintoff nailed Gilchrist consistently during the Ashes series and the lack of the usual runs from number 7 was a big reason why the Aussies weren't able to get the big totals they're used to (hence affecting the outcome of the series quite a bit). Gilchrist belted the living daylights out of Flintoff in a bunch of meaningless one-dayers and one meaningless Test; the ledger is pretty far from being squared but Gilchrist at least brought the margin back a little.

 

[social]

Yep exactly; context matters. Flintoff nailed Gilchrist consistently during the Ashes series and the lack of the usual runs from number 7 was a big reason why the Aussies weren't able to get the big totals they're used to (hence affecting the outcome of the series quite a bit). Gilchrist belted the living daylights out of Flintoff in a bunch of meaningless one-dayers and one meaningless Test; the ledger is pretty far from being squared but Gilchrist at least brought the margin back a little.

Meaningless to whom exactly?

From the Aus team's reactions, they certainly werent meaningless to them.

Fans of other countries would like everyone to believe they were totally meaningless because their favourite players copped hidings in 4 consecutive matches.

The games may not have meant as much to the international players as tests for their own country, but I find it hard to believe they simply allowed themselves to be Australia's whipping boys.

I think you'll find that a substantial no. of the international players saw it as an opportunity to get one back on Aus after years of floggings. They simply lacked the ability/resolve/match fitness to prevent a one-sided event.

To put it into perspective, do you think Warne would ever have let up on Cullinan, no matter how "meaningless" the occasion?

Then again, that's maybe why he's great and the majority of others arent.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Not in the tests he played. ODIs maybe.

Well, I was only referring to the ODI's he played in India. I actually forgot Bracken played his first few tests against India.

 

[tooextracool]

Meaningless to whom exactly?

From the Aus team's reactions, they certainly werent meaningless to them.

Fans of other countries would like everyone to believe they were totally meaningless because their favourite players copped hidings in 4 consecutive matches.

The games may not have meant as much to the international players as tests for their own country, but I find it hard to believe they simply allowed themselves to be Australia's whipping boys.

I think you'll find that a substantial no. of the international players saw it as an opportunity to get one back on Aus after years of floggings. They simply lacked the ability/resolve/match fitness to prevent a one-sided event.

To put it into perspective, do you think Warne would ever have let up on Cullinan, no matter how "meaningless" the occasion?

Then again, that's maybe why he's great and the majority of others arent.

for one thing its completely different playing with players you've never played before. further only an idiot would put everything into his bowling in a series where he has nothing to prove not to mention the fact that he just came out from the ashes and has a major role to play in the pakistan series that was to follow. just because the aussies took the series as though it was the most important thing in the world to them, it doesnt mean that everyone else did the same. and if you honestly think that its close to even because gilchrist got the better of flintoff in 1 test match innings then you're quite deluded.

 

[Kweek]

Warne-Bell anyone ?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I can't see why the so-called best players in the world wouldn't give it their all in any match. If they didn't, they don't deserve to be called the best.

 

[Slats4ever]

for one thing its completely different playing with players you've never played before. further only an idiot would put everything into his bowling in a series where he has nothing to prove not to mention the fact that he just came out from the ashes and has a major role to play in the pakistan series that was to follow. just because the aussies took the series as though it was the most important thing in the world to them, it doesnt mean that everyone else did the same. and if you honestly think that its close to even because gilchrist got the better of flintoff in 1 test match innings then you're quite deluded.

what a crock of s*. What a closed minded piece of trollop. I've never heard a more ludicrous thing said. If Flintoff didn't wanna try to win he wouldn't have even bothered turning up. He woulda said he was resting and injury or something soft. Of course he played and of course he played hard...

The Aussie's played it just as hard as they would play any other series... To even suggest that the ROW players slackened off is crap. You're either blind or don't quite understand the concept of some of the ROW players being rusty as they hadn't played lotsa cricket. doesn't mean they didn't try.

Besides what Top_Cat was implying was not that the bar was close... far from but that he isn't completely dominant anymore, and Gilchrist is fighting back.

 

[social]

for one thing its completely different playing with players you've never played before. further only an idiot would put everything into his bowling in a series where he has nothing to prove not to mention the fact that he just came out from the ashes and has a major role to play in the pakistan series that was to follow. just because the aussies took the series as though it was the most important thing in the world to them, it doesnt mean that everyone else did the same. and if you honestly think that its close to even because gilchrist got the better of flintoff in 1 test match innings then you're quite deluded.

Thank-you genius.

Flintoff doesnt try because he's going to Pakistan in 6 weeks and wants to conserve his energy. What a load of rubbish.

He tried hard enough to get 7 wickets in the match. Obviously, he was only conserving his energy when he was bowling to Gilchrist or trying to work out what MacGill was bowling next.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because Gilchrist worked on his game and came back to normal form.

Is it even yet? No.

Did it mean as much as the Ashes? Of course not.

Is Gilchrist Flintoff's bunny? Not unless a bunny suddenly turns the tables and starts smacking you everywhere, not just once, but a number of times.

 

[NZTailender]

Some selective NZ stats because I'm bored..
5 wickets or over (does that qualify as a bunny?)

Chris Harris > Brian Lara, Gary Kirsten (in ODI's - arguable). Interesting to note Harris's top five "bunnies" are all lefthanders.

Warne > McMillan

Bond > Ponting - ODI's (as stated)

Cairns > Dippenaar, Gilchrist (ODI's) & Streak, Thrope (Tests).

Vettori > Warne (& Martyn?)
Gilchrist > Vettori


McGrath has gotten Cairns out 6 times at an average of 45 in tests but 5 times in ODI's at 14.

Difference between two senior NZ batsmen:
Warne > Fleming - 6 times at 8.66
Warne > Astle - 7 times at 40.71


Very bored.

 

[Hit4Six]

Warne-Bell anyone ?

I think its all aussie bowlers and bell except gillespie...and maybe lee...and tait...but mcgrath and warne def

 

[tooextracool]

Thank-you genius.

Flintoff doesnt try because he's going to Pakistan in 6 weeks and wants to conserve his energy. What a load of rubbish.

He tried hard enough to get 7 wickets in the match. Obviously, he was only conserving his energy when he was bowling to Gilchrist or trying to work out what MacGill was bowling next.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because Gilchrist worked on his game and came back to normal form.

Is it even yet? No.

Did it mean as much as the Ashes? Of course not.

Is Gilchrist Flintoff's bunny? Not unless a bunny suddenly turns the tables and starts smacking you everywhere, not just once, but a number of times.

oh wow, he did it in a whole 1 innings of an exhibition game, give him a medal

since atherton scored a 77 against Mcgrath at Lords, we can now claim that he was never Mcgrath's bunny.
get over it, your continual refusal to accept that fact that the super series meant nothing to any of the english players and to most of the other players in the world XI side is really getting annoying. Gilchrist in the entire ashes series didnt score a 50 even once, which says a fair bit about how much he was worked out.
and i really like these 'number of times' you refer to, even though for the 10000000000000TH TIME, TEST MATCH CRICKET IS DIFFERENT FROM ODI CRICKET.
and just so you know even before the Ashes there was an ODI where Gilchrist scored a 100 against flintoff, does that mean he worked on his game, how about Hell no?
and you still havent provided a valid reason as to why Flintoff would bowl at his best in the super series, and incase you werent watching, he was clearly below par on the first day when he bowled absolute garbage wide off the off stump and got smashed all over the place as a result.

 

[tooextracool]

what a crock of s*. What a closed minded piece of trollop. I've never heard a more ludicrous thing said. If Flintoff didn't wanna try to win he wouldn't have even bothered turning up. He woulda said he was resting and injury or something soft. Of course he played and of course he played hard...

why because you say so? if you even watched any of the cricket, you'd realise that he was wayward for most of his spell and was consistently below the level that he raised himself upto during the ashes. much like the rest of the aussies you still have the Ashes hangover, and make the Super Series out to be something that maintains your superiority over England and every other team in the world. Gilchrist was worked out period, and it will take more than 1 innings of an exhibition game to try to prove people that hes no longer his bunny.

The Aussie's played it just as hard as they would play any other series...

which means that everyone else did? The series meant more to Australia than it did to most other players, simple as that.

To even suggest that the ROW players slackened off is crap. You're either blind or don't quite understand the concept of some of the ROW players being rusty as they hadn't played lotsa cricket. doesn't mean they didn't try.

some of them may have tried, but it was clear from the very beginning that flintoff,harmison and pietersen couldnt all care less about whether they managed to win these games or not. as such none of them were as determined as they were in the ashes, and harmison even stated something along those lines.

 

[greg]

Atherton and Warne in 2001. I think Athers averaged about 10 balls

 

[marc71178]

further only an idiot would put everything into his bowling in a series where he has nothing to prove not to mention the fact that he just came out from the ashes and has a major role to play in the pakistan series that was to follow. just because the aussies took the series as though it was the most important thing in the world to them, it doesnt mean that everyone else did the same. and if you honestly think that its close to even because gilchrist got the better of flintoff in 1 test match innings then you're quite deluded.

Interestingly that Test was Flintoff's 2nd best match figures in his career...

 

[social]

oh wow, he did it in a whole 1 innings of an exhibition game, give him a medal

since atherton scored a 77 against Mcgrath at Lords, we can now claim that he was never Mcgrath's bunny.
get over it, your continual refusal to accept that fact that the super series meant nothing to any of the english players and to most of the other players in the world XI side is really getting annoying. Gilchrist in the entire ashes series didnt score a 50 even once, which says a fair bit about how much he was worked out.
and i really like these 'number of times' you refer to, even though for the 10000000000000TH TIME, TEST MATCH CRICKET IS DIFFERENT FROM ODI CRICKET.
and just so you know even before the Ashes there was an ODI where Gilchrist scored a 100 against flintoff, does that mean he worked on his game, how about Hell no?
and you still havent provided a valid reason as to why Flintoff would bowl at his best in the super series, and incase you werent watching, he was clearly below par on the first day when he bowled absolute garbage wide off the off stump and got smashed all over the place as a result.

And you refusal to accept that one of the greatest players ever merely regained form is delusional at best.

The fact is that Flintoff was good enough to take advantage of technical problems that crept into Gilchrist's game during the English summer.

Gilchrist comes home, works on his game, and pummels EVERYBODY during the course of the Super Series.

And has it ever crossed your mind that Flintoff didnt bowl well on the first day because he wasnt allowed to. Balls that were beating the bat in the Ashes suddenly hit the middle. It does happen when your bowling to top quality players, you know.

Given the illogical and emotional nature of your argument, I can only assume that youre upset because some of your favourite players (no names, no pack drill, Rahul) came up horribly short against Aus again.

 

[social]

Interestingly that Test was Flintoff's 2nd best match figures in his career...

Dont bring logic into this discussion, Marc. It doesnt sit well with TEC.

He'd prefer to think that Freddie achieved it without trying and whilst allowing his "bunnies" to pummel him to all parts.

 

[marc71178]

Dont bring logic into this discussion, Marc.

Well, you've clearly not done...