• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

CricketFan90s

CricketFan90s

State 12th Man
capt_Luffy said:
I don't necessarily think Boult is underrated; it's not right to take Jamieson or Bond ahead of him, but Cowie is an interesting case pre WWII. His career was battered by the war and playing for NZ who just became a Test nation and hardly played much. For the limited chances he got, especially in FC games against practically Australia and England, he did very well. Many people believe he would an ATG if he played for Australia like Grimmett.
Click to expand...
thats a bit hypothetical what if case. so will stick to boult. he is a modern day great 27 average is not bad in this era.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

International Debutant
CricketFan90s said:
thats a bit hypothetical what if case. so will stick to boult. he is a modern day great 27 average is not bad in this era.
Click to expand...
His case kinda similar to Barry Richards and Mike Procter in my mind. If I include them ahead of guys like Gary Kirsten, a much proven quality opener of modern age, can't see why I won't do the same for Cowie. Albert I digrace, Boult vs Cowie is much closer and Boult more proven and has a good record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top