marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
PY said:I'll have an 8th of what you're smoking.
You won't, because Liam's already caught up with him.
PY said:I'll have an 8th of what you're smoking.
yet neither of them made it....im quite surprised as i would have expected the list to feature the best fast bowler ever along with the best spinner,best batsman and the best all rounderFord_GTHO351 said:Test Comparison
Marshall: 81 Matches, 376 wickets@ 20.94, SR: 46.7, Economy: 2.68 rpo
Lillee: 70 Matches, 355 wickets@ 23.92, SR: 52.0, Economy: 2.75 rpo
ODI Comparison
Marshall: 136 Matches, 157 wickets@ 26.96, SR: 45.7, Economy: 3.53 rpo
Lillee: 63 Matches, 103 wickets@ 20.82, SR: 34.8, Economy: 3.58 rpo
Marshall would have made the list for me too if it was based on the criteria you suggest.tooextracool said:yet neither of them made it....im quite surprised as i would have expected the list to feature the best fast bowler ever along with the best spinner,best batsman and the best all rounder
He was talking about Tendulkar.marc71178 said:Try telling that to Hampshire supporters - they seem to be quite happy with
him.
He certainly seems to be getting the best out of the likes of Mascarenhas (for one)
Are you able to post without trying to start a flame war?Scallywag said:Richards was absolutely awesome, but Tendulkar is a ball tamperer and does not deserve to be in such good company. Plus he is a lousy captain which indicates that he is only concerned with his own game. When it comes to team players Tendulkar is a self centered batsman that does nothing for the team.
Afraid not Neil, orangepitch was making comment referring to Warne's captaincy abilities.Neil Pickup said:He was talking about Tendulkar.
It appears that it's a rip-off of Scallywag's anti-Tendulkar post.PY said:Afraid not Neil, orangepitch was making comment referring to Warne's captaincy abilities.
Whether it was tongue-in-cheek, he only knows.
Although most people would agree with you, I think this is debatable. Richards never had to face the mighty West Indies bowlers yet Gavaskar still finished with a slightly superior career record. Furthermore, Richards record against the best opposition available at his time (Pakistan and New Zealand) is comparatively modest, while Gavaskar's record against the mighty West Indians is commendable. Also because the West Indies were so good Richards was rarely under pressure as a batsmen. Conversely, almost every innings that Gavaskar played was important because the Indians were nowhere near as good as West Indies. Yet Gavaskar's record is still slightly better.Swervy said:Was Gavaskar as good as Richards??? NO
That would be Ian.marc71178 said:You won't, because Liam's already caught up with him.
Yeah they were as good if not better with the exception of Qadir however criteria WAS not just who is better in 'your opinon'.Wasim v Lille.. no contest. Sunny v Richards..close, very close with Sunny taking the edge IMO.Swervy said:Was Qadir as good as Warne???? NO
Was Gavaskar as good as Richards??? NO
Was Akram as good as Lillee??? NO
All that says is he is human. Believe it or not, even cricketers cant be perfect! (and yes, sometimes it IS hard to believe!)a massive zebra said:I don't think Lillee was the complete fast bowler. Even Rod Marsh admitted he had weaknesses against left-handers and he was not that great at running through the tail.
Don Bradman had odd days of near perfection (ie 309 not out at Headingly in 1930 and a 22 ball century in Australia a couple of years later). Beat that!!Linda said:All that says is he is human. Believe it or not, even cricketers cant be perfect! (and yes, sometimes it IS hard to believe!)
Ok, well the 309* couldve been 310*, which would be closer to perfection.a massive zebra said:Don Bradman had odd days of near perfection (ie 309 not out at Headingly in 1930 and a 22 ball century in Australia a couple of years later). Beat that!!
Mecnun said:Wasim v Lille.. no contest..
Absoloutely none. What made you think I had a problem with Lille ahead of Wasim in some people's opinions?marc71178 said:I know, so what's your problem with people putting Lillee ahead of Wasim?
If that argument was the case then surely Murali would have a larger s/r then warne, but in fact it's better (58.9 compared to 59.7), which shows there both as penetrative as each other, irrespective of who they're bowling with, therefore that argument is wasted. Why do people try and rank them. They're both awesome so chill out and leave it as that.Sudeep Popat said:And one more thing, Warne for me is any day better than Murali. We have to keep in mind that Murali is the only strike bowler in SL, bowls 40% of their overs, and thus is bound to take more wickets than Warne, who might be bowling only 25% of Australia's overs when he is bowling. Plus, Warne has had the might of McGrath and Gillespie around him, who were as eager to pick up wickets as he.
ReallyCrazy said:Still Richards finds his name in the top five. That's a farce. Tendulkar has a much better record than him against EVERY team.