PDA

View Full Version : Cricket: McCullum joins the greats



Parihaka
18 Feb 14,, 21:23
Cricket: McCullum joins the greats (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11205036)


WELLINGTON: You can judge the character of a player during an adversity; and you can get an insight into the personality of a man, when he goes and does something great.

Brendon McCullum showed how huge he is on both counts when he rescued New Zealand from imminent defeat and went on to score the first triple century for his country. "Without being disrespectful I probably didn't know the magnitude of it (the 300) until the last 24 hours," he said, almost embarrassed by the love and respect he was getting.

"I grew up and watched the NZ cricket team for years on end. I watched Martin Crowe score his 299 and thought it would have been an amazing feat if he scored 300, but probably didn't quite understand how much it meant to the whole country," he revealed.

McCullum was dog-tired, even in a daze, when he retired for the day on 281 on Monday evening. "I wasn't too bad," he said about the effort, "till I saw the size of the crowd. Then, every ball that I defended, left or got a single, they would start cheering and it made me a little bit more nervous.

"That's probably when I understood the magnitude of the task at hand and the immense joy it gives fans of this cricket team to see guys succeed and see records broken. It was a moment when 300 came up and the applause was ongoing for quite a while. It is really when it hit home to me that it was quite a significant feat for a New Zealander and I'll certainly remember them for the rest of my life."

He was honest enough to share that it was once-in-a-lifetime experience. "I've never experienced anything like that before. All the tough times and tough periods you go through when you're out of form and you're just trying to keep the faith in what you're trying to achieve.

"And just knowing there are plenty of good people out there who are backing you as well in that moment I guess I realised how much satisfaction you can bring people from the way you achieve stuff and that gave me a lot of good feelings."

McCullum revealed that the momentum towards the 300 had started building up on Monday evening itself. "I saw Martin Crowe talk about it on television. I spoke to Stephen Fleming and both were only talking about the significance of a 300 to the country.

"Those two guys sat at 1 and 2 on the table. I feel a little bit embarrassed because I'm nowhere near the calibre of players they were, but I think in terms of New Zealand cricket and moving forward for this team, we have finally broken that 300 barrier and hopefully some of these guys will continue to break that barrier."

The NZ skipper showed he has a sense of humour despite the fatigue by making it clear that he didn't have a tear in his eye after reaching the landmark. "Nah, no tear in the eye. I'm from south Dunedin."

Speaking about the previous night, he said: "I went for a beer with the old man. He was up and booked his flight for a month late which everyone says was a bit silly. I just think he's quite cunning. I just tried to keep it relaxed and normal as possible."

bolo121
19 Feb 14,, 04:13
Team BCCI can always be counted on to improve the statistics of every batsman they face.

ambidex
19 Feb 14,, 06:52
Marvellous innings, a dream for any cricketer to play like this and rescue a lost match.

Frustrating for Indian fans though, actually the whole series.

I watched 4th ODI at Seddan Park. The crowd was ecstatic there, one of the kiwi supporter told me that this series has rejuvenated people's interest for this game. He followed rugby when West Indies were touring but for that match he drove all the way from tokoroa with his family and little ones to watch a day and night match.

35610

35611

Bigfella
19 Feb 14,, 07:33
Well done that man! Truly a great day for NZ cricket compounded by a series victory over the number 2 ranked team in the world (for now, that will change if SA doesn't win the series against Australia). New Zealand's spirit & skill was as impressive as India's bowling was unimpressive. India continues a long tradition of under-achievement overseas. Can't wait for them to tour here again soon.

sated buddha
19 Feb 14,, 08:58
Can't wait for them to tour here again soon.

Ditto. Anything less than 4-0 and you would still be in arrears from the last time your guys were over here.

But I can understand. Everyone wants a bite of the reigning World Champions. Its natural. Aspirational.

That said, I would be the first to admit that we are playing crap all currently. Our strength has always been our batsmen, but the bowlers have to do something at least. Test matches are won by getting the other side out twice, and simply put, we have fallen short of that.

Bigfella
19 Feb 14,, 09:19
Ditto. Anything less than 4-0 and you would still be in arrears from the last time your guys were over here.

Depends how you look at it SB. Last time India toured here, with one of the best teams ever to leave India, you lost 4-0. Could say we are even now.


But I can understand. Everyone wants a bite of the reigning World Champions. Its natural. Aspirational.


To be more precise, they enjoy beating the best. That is why we are enjoying beating up on Sth Africa right now & why everyone enjoys beating us. There is no 'World Champion' of Test cricket & since Australia, England & India just destroyed the structure of world cricket to avoid yet another Indian tantrum there probably won't be. We only have the ICC rankings. Not sure when India was last at the top of those, but it was a while ago. India has rarely been 'the best' at Test cricket.

If you are referring to the 50 over game, Nobody outside the winning nation cares that much after the tournament ends & it means stuff all for Test cricket.


That said, I would be the first to admit that we are playing crap all currently. Our strength has always been our batsmen, but the bowlers have to do something at least. Test matches are won by getting the other side out twice, and simply put, we have fallen short of that.


India has consistently failed to produce bowlers who get wickets outside India. it isn't just a problem of the moment, but a long term issue. Without any disrespect to McCullum, allowing NZ to pass 500 in consecutive tests is a disgrace.

sated buddha
19 Feb 14,, 09:37
To be more precise, they enjoy beating the best. That is why we are enjoying beating up on Sth Africa right now & why everyone enjoys beating us.

Yes and no. South Africa are the best right now. Australia on the other hand are third best, and could possibly climb to second by displacing us by the end of the tour. But still not the best. You've had one good series after years of recent losses, which saw you go as low as 5 (or was it 6). A little premature to be breaking out the bubbly yet.


There is no 'World Champion' of Test cricket & since Australia, England & India just destroyed the structure of world cricket to avoid yet another Indian tantrum there probably won't be. We only have the ICC rankings. Not sure when India was last at the top of those, but it was a while ago. India has rarely been 'the best' at Test cricket.

You cannot have a reliable and credible championship of a format where you cannot guarantee a winner and a loser. In such a situation, regardless of "tantrums", the current system is the best. Speaking of a while ago, India was No. 1 in Test cricket a lot more recently than Australia was, if I am not mistaken. We are rebuilding after the retirement of our greats also much more recently that your rebuild post the retirement of yours. Yet we've won a World Cup and a Champions Trophy during that. When and which was the last serious trophy you've won in world cricket (can't recall, but it must have been a while ago)?


If you are referring to the 50 over game, Nobody outside the winning nation cares that much after the tournament ends & it means stuff all for Test cricket.

World cricket has two official World Cups, and we've won both, and are the current reigning World Champions of the 50 over format. The format which was the only world chamionship til the 20 over one came along. So yes, we are the World Champions, and we got there by dethroning you in the quarter finals. Which means there were at the very least, at least 4 world teams better than you were. So yes, I would understand if you as a nation would not "care mch" about that. Till and if you happen to win agin of course.


India has consistently failed to produce bowlers who get wickets outside India. it isn't just a problem of the moment, but a long term issue. Without any disrespect to McCullum, allowing NZ to pass 500 in consecutive tests is a disgrace.

I would agree to that. We do have a paucity of good world beating bowlers. Then again, we own almost every record worth owning as batsmen. Just to put things into perspective.

Bigfella
19 Feb 14,, 10:20
Yes and no. South Africa are the best right now. Australia on the other hand are third best, and could possibly climb to second by displacing us by the end of the tour. But still not the best. You've had one good series after years of recent losses, which saw you go as low as 5 (or was it 6). A little premature to be breaking out the bubbly yet.


I'm not, but we are on an upward trajectory. Unless Sth Africa win the next 2 tests we go second. As for 'years of losses', you are overstating things a bit. Had we beaten Sth Africa at home at the end of 2012 (and we only missed out narrowly) we would have been no.1. In the 12 months previous to that we played 6 test series of which we lost 1, drew 2 & won 3 (2 away from home). In the following 12 months we won 2 test series & lost 2. A poor return by our standards, but still not bad.


You cannot have a reliable and credible championship of a format where you cannot guarantee a winner and a loser. In such a situation, regardless of "tantrums", the current system is the best.

My comments were directed more broadly at the gutting of the ICC. The proposed Championship of Test Cricket is but one likely casualty.


Speaking of a while ago, India was No. 1 in Test cricket a lot more recently than Australia was, if I am not mistaken. We are rebuilding after the retirement of our greats also much more recently that your rebuild post the retirement of yours. Yet we've won a World Cup and a Champions Trophy during that. When and which was the last serious trophy you've won in world cricket (can't recall, but it must have been a while ago)?


We won the most recent of our 4 World Cups in 2007. The 3rd in a row. At no point did out 'World Champion' status from that tournament mean anything in the Test arena. We were the no.1 Test nation at some point in every year from 1995-2009.


World cricket has two official World Cups, and we've won both, and are the current reigning World Champions of the 50 over format.

None of which matters in Test cricket. Personally I don't care if you (or anyone else) beats us in every limited overs match outside of 50 over a side World Cups for the rest of my life. I can barely remember the last 1 day game I saw. I can remember Tests I attended back to the 1970s.


I would agree to that. We do have a paucity of good world beating bowlers. Then again, we own almost every record worth owning as batsmen. Just to put things into perspective.


....and your batsmen made a lot of those runs on flat tracks on the subcontinent. Just to put things in perspective. Individual records are nice, but a distant second place to national success.

sated buddha
19 Feb 14,, 10:44
I'm not, but we are on an upward trajectory. Unless Sth Africa win the next 2 tests we go second. As for 'years of losses', you are overstating things a bit. Had we beaten Sth Africa at home at the end of 2012 (and we only missed out narrowly) we would have been no.1. In the 12 months previous to that we played 6 test series of which we lost 1, drew 2 & won 3 (2 away from home). In the following 12 months we won 2 test series & lost 2. A poor return by our standards, but still not bad.

My point is that even if you become No. 2, you are not No. 1. Not by a fair margin currently. And by becoming No. 2, you are simply reaching the position we currently hold, and would displace us by a few points (I think 2) at best. Just to put things in perspective vis a vis the current test cricket pecking order. Yes, Johnson has brought you back from the dead. But Johnson is one bowler, and a fast bowler is one injury away from a lost series.


My comments were directed more broadly at the gutting of the ICC. The proposed Championship of Test Cricket is but one likely casualty.

Your comment came across as less than broad when sideswiping Indian "tantrums." :) But regardless, what format would you propose for a test "championship" better than what we have had for some years now? A round robin? Hardly fair given the permutations and combinations of home vs away spanning many seasons.


We won the most recent of our 4 World Cups in 2007. The 3rd in a row. At no point did out 'World Champion' status from that tournament mean anything in the Test arena. We were the no.1 Test nation at some point in every year from 1995-2009.

And we have won the second of our 2 in 2011. The shift of power is apparent. Even when you were No. 1 in tests more than half a decade ago, we were the only team to run you close for much of the period you refer to. Were it not for partisan histrionics in the Sydneygate series, we could and probably would have beaten you at home as well.


None of which matters in Test cricket. Personally I don't care if you (or anyone else) beats us in every limited overs match outside of 50 over a side World Cups for the rest of my life. I can barely remember the last 1 day game I saw. I can remember Tests I attended back to the 1970s.

I like test cricket too, but that does not mean that I do not like one day cricket. The only official format cricket has of deciding top dog. And we are the current reigning World Champions, any way we dissect current form. And will be holding on to that cup for another year at the very least.Of course, we are also also the current Champions of Champions, holding as we do the Champions Trophy as well.


....and your batsmen made a lot of those runs on flat tracks on the subcontinent.

Cricket is a game played by two countries. After one team finishes batting, the other team has a shot at batting as well. Just to put things in perspective vis a vis flat tracks.

And if you see our greats, they would invariably also have a great away record in the span of their entire career. Some like Dravid actually a better away than home record.

At the end of the day, cricket is a batsman's game. The team that scores more runs wins - in any format. And we have always excelled as batsmen. There is no debate. Your best (Ponting) is probably third after two of ours (Tendulkar and Dravid). And by sheer talent, I would probably have to even place Lara ahead.

Bigfella
19 Feb 14,, 13:07
My point is that even if you become No. 2, you are not No. 1. Not by a fair margin currently. And by becoming No. 2, you are simply reaching the position we currently hold, and would displace us by a few points (I think 2) at best. Just to put things in perspective vis a vis the current test cricket pecking order.

Yes, I know. Lets talk in 12 months.


Yes, Johnson has brought you back from the dead. But Johnson is one bowler, and a fast bowler is one injury away from a lost series.


The only area where we have insane depth right now is fast bowlers. There are guys who would struggle to get into a 2nd Australian team who would walk into most teams in the world right now. Don't get sucked in by the hype. Mitch makes us more dangerous, but he isn't the team.


Your comment came across as less than broad when sideswiping Indian "tantrums." :)

Our nations have just participated in the destruction of international cricket for the most selfish reasons and the reason is well known. it will impact all aspects of the game, sadly. India produces great cricketers. Same can't be said for the hangers on.


And we have won the second of our 2 in 2011. The shift of power is apparent.

Start winning away from home regularly & we will talk about 'shifts of power'.


Even when you were No. 1 in tests more than half a decade ago, we were the only team to run you close for much of the period you refer to. Were it not for partisan histrionics in the Sydneygate series, we could and probably would have beaten you at home as well.

Oh dear. Still on about that. Talk about sore losers.


I like test cricket too, but that does not mean that I do not like one day cricket.

Good for you. Not much relevant to what I like, however.


The only official format cricket has of deciding top dog.

....in one day cricket. Overclaiming just makes you look silly.:)


And we are the current reigning World Champions, any way we dissect current form. And will be holding on to that cup for another year at the very least.Of course, we are also also the current Champions of Champions, holding as we do the Champions Trophy as well.


None of which is even the slightest reason why we want to beat you in the coming test series. Again, telling us why we want something just makes you look silly.


Cricket is a game played by two countries. After one team finishes batting, the other team has a shot at batting as well. Just to put things in perspective vis a vis flat tracks.


Yes, but your teams got to play on your flat tracks more often than anyone else.


And if you see our greats, they would invariably also have a great away record in the span of their entire career. Some like Dravid actually a better away than home record.


Invariably? Really?


At the end of the day, cricket is a batsman's game. The team that scores more runs wins - in any format. And we have always excelled as batsmen.

Actually, no. As you observed earlier it is usually necessary to get 20 wickets to win a test. That is why even your best team of the last decade struggled to stay number 1 for any length of time. Good batting is not enough. Never has been. Batsmen just get more attention.


There is no debate. Your best (Ponting) is probably third after two of ours (Tendulkar and Dravid). And by sheer talent, I would probably have to even place Lara ahead.


I'm assuming you are talking about the last 15-20 years.

Doktor
19 Feb 14,, 13:12
I have no idea what you guys talk about and am thankful about my ignorance.:Dancing-Banana:

sated buddha
19 Feb 14,, 13:14
Bigfella its nice to see the Aussies (players and fans) get some of their swagger back.

Will make it that much sweeter. :)

15-20 years? Try all-time. Yes, I'm including the pre-war era here as well.

On the flat tracks, again, regardless of whther we play more on them or not, the fact remains there is someone we are playing against, who also gets to bat on the same flat track. Its a level playing field so denying that is actually making you look both silly and sour grape whiny too. :)

Bigfella
19 Feb 14,, 13:28
Bigfella its nice to see the Aussies (players and fans) get some of their swagger back.

Will make it that much sweeter. :)

Feel free to predict an outcome for the series.


15-20 years? Try all-time. Yes, I'm including the pre-war era here as well.

In which case your list is missing some names. Rather a lot actually. Unless you are focussed purely on quantity...an inferior measure. Bradman & Hobbes are clear 1 & 2. Three is tricker, but Sutcliffe is a good bet. Tendulkar mightmake the top 5, but there are oh so many great batsmen to consider. Hammond, Hutton, Hanif Mohammed, Gavaskar (who I would rate India's greatest), Sobers, Headley, Trumper, Miandad, Kallis, Pollock, Barrington & many more.


On the flat tracks, again, regardless of whther we play more on them or not, the fact remains there is someone we are playing against, who also gets to bat on the same flat track. Its a level playing field so denying that is actually making you look both silly and sour grape whiny too. :)


And once again you miss the point completely (or deliberately). How many tests do Indian players get to play on those tracks compared to other batsmen? More, obviously. Therefore you get more chances to make runs on them. That is entirely the point.

bolo121
19 Feb 14,, 17:07
I have agree with BF on the recent shameful gutting of the ICC.
Now evil BCCI will loot not just from India but from the whole cricketing world.

Bigfella
20 Feb 14,, 08:16
I have agree with BF on the recent shameful gutting of the ICC.
Now evil BCCI will loot not just from India but from the whole cricketing world.

...with the help of England & Australia. It will take a while for the full consequences of this to flow through, but they will not be positive.

sated buddha
20 Feb 14,, 11:30
Bigfella how old are you if you were watching test cricket in the 70s? I remember as a small boy during my vacations at my grandparents' place in Bombay (they had no TV) going to a neighbors house and watching the whole day's play, all 5 days, on their big black and white TV on Doordarshan. Those were better and simpler times. Big heavy black telephone with the revolving dial. Early 80s I think. None of my kids like watching cricket even remotely.

Bigfella
20 Feb 14,, 14:03
Bigfella how old are you if you were watching test cricket in the 70s? I remember as a small boy during my vacations at my grandparents' place in Bombay (they had no TV) going to a neighbors house and watching the whole day's play, all 5 days, on their big black and white TV on Doordarshan. Those were better and simpler times. Big heavy black telephone with the revolving dial. Early 80s I think. None of my kids like watching cricket even remotely.

Went to my first official test at the MCG over the 1978-79 New Year with my dad. Around that time I also saw some of the original World Series Cricket - the 'Packer Circus' - both in Melbourne & my home town of Albury. Have been to virtually every Boxing Day test since the late 80s and a few one dayers. Saw Viv Richards hit a century on the MCG & saw Pakistan beat England in a World Cup Final. Over the years I got to see most of the greats of the past 35 years in the flesh. From Lillee, Marsh & Chappell to the 84-85 West Indies side & the early 2000s Australian side - the two best teams I will ever see (Windies were better). I got to see Shane Warne's first 5 wicket haul in tests and his hat trick. I doubt I will live long enough to see a bowler that good again. My only regret is that my Dad just missed out on seeing Warne. He loved leg spin.

Doktor
20 Feb 14,, 14:19
SB,

What BF is saying is that he a dino. Never, ever, ask about his age ;)

Bigfella
20 Feb 14,, 14:38
SB,

What BF is saying is that he a dino. Never, ever, ask about his age ;)

I'm a bloody spring chicken on this site Doc! :biggrin:

I'm betting you're old enough to remember the late Mr Broz & his spiffy hunting outfits. ;)

Doktor
20 Feb 14,, 15:03
I'm a bloody spring chicken on this site Doc! :biggrin:

I'm betting you're old enough to remember the late Mr Broz & his spiffy hunting outfits. ;)

You just lost a bet.

Mr. Broz died when I was not even school-aged ;)

DarthSiddius
20 Feb 14,, 16:04
I have agree with BF on the recent shameful gutting of the ICC.
Now evil BCCI will loot not just from India but from the whole cricketing world.

What does a man have to do to get some love around here? We even managed to tag along the Ozzy-Pommy empire, BFF?

bolo121
20 Feb 14,, 19:12
What does a man have to do to get some love around here? We even managed to tag along the Ozzy-Pommy empire, BFF?

I dont get you. Its obviously the first stage.
They bribed Aus and Eng to squish the little guys.
After a few years they will marginalise them also and BCCI will become BCICC.
All the pols and business types will ride high to hog heaven.

DarthSiddius
20 Feb 14,, 19:46
Forgot to add the /sarcasm tag. I'l go sit in a corner now......

Bigfella
20 Feb 14,, 23:35
You just lost a bet.

Mr. Broz died when I was not even school-aged ;)

Didn't realise you guys started school so late in the Worker's Paradise Doc. :biggrin:

I can remember stuff that happened before I went to school (as young as 4). One of them was the building of the school I went to - it was next to my house.

Bigfella
20 Feb 14,, 23:47
I dont get you. Its obviously the first stage.
They bribed Aus and Eng to squish the little guys.
After a few years they will marginalise them also and BCCI will become BCICC.
All the pols and business types will ride high to hog heaven.

Combination of bribes & threats apparently. BCCI threatened to pull India out of world cricket if it didn't get what it wanted. That was the stick. The carrot for us & the poms was more power. ICC should have stood staunch & called BCCI's bluff. A bad business.

Doktor
20 Feb 14,, 23:53
Didn't realise you guys started school so late in the Worker's Paradise Doc. :biggrin:
Hey, we enjoyed our childhood.


I can remember stuff that happened before I went to school (as young as 4). One of them was the building of the school I went to - it was next to my house.

From that age, I remember my dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0arplaninac). Well who wouldn't, he was huge in my eyes.

Bigfella
21 Feb 14,, 00:37
Hey, we enjoyed our childhood.

Less school = more time for Pioneers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Pioneers_of_Yugoslavia) where you can learn to love Mr Broz & his spiffy hunting outfits. :biggrin:



From that age, I remember my dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0arplaninac). Well who wouldn't, he was huge in my eyes.


SO CUTE!!! :Dancing-Banana: (the dog, not you Doc).

I love that you guys have your very own dog breed. I'm afraid our local breed isn't good with children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Azaria_Chamberlain)

Doktor
21 Feb 14,, 00:50
Less school = more time for Pioneers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Pioneers_of_Yugoslavia) where you can learn to love Mr Broz & his spiffy hunting outfits. :biggrin:

Nah, first we had to be mature enough to become Pioneers. That happened in the first grade (typically 7/o).
We didn't learn anything about Marshal's hunting habits, but how his dog, Lux, saved his life or how he escaped the bodyguards to have a little chit chat with shepherds (maybe he had some Oz or Kiwi consultants, who knows).


SO CUTE!!! :Dancing-Banana: (the dog, not you Doc).
Any dog is more handsome then me. Even the Afghan Hound.


I love that you guys have your very own dog breed. I'm afraid our local breed isn't good with children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Azaria_Chamberlain)
Like everything else here, it's not solely ours.

About the Dingo's case I remember it. It was something on a rumor level here and was so spooky, people were actually afraid to even to talk about it.

Bigfella
21 Feb 14,, 01:05
Nah, first we had to be mature enough to become Pioneers. That happened in the first grade (typically 7/o).
We didn't learn anything about Marshal's hunting habits, but how his dog, Lux, saved his life or how he escaped the bodyguards to have a little chit chat with shepherds (maybe he had some Oz or Kiwi consultants, who knows).


Always knew he was a man of the people. Anyone who dresses that well is just bound to be.


Any dog is more handsome then me. Even the Afghan Hound.

Awwww.:tongue:


Like everything else here, it's not solely ours.

Don't tell me the Greeks are claiming this one too.


About the Dingo's case I remember it. It was something on a rumor level here and was so spooky, people were actually afraid to even to talk about it.


We convinced ourselves the mother did because she didn't grieve the way we thought she should. A biased police force & dodgy forensic evidence sealed the deal. Turns out she didn't do it, though a hard core handful of people still think she did. Moral of the tale: don't mess with Australian wildlife or Australian police. ;)

bolo121
21 Feb 14,, 05:21
Forgot to add the /sarcasm tag. I'l go sit in a corner now......

Whoops :redface: Was a bit too sleepy before coffee for me to catch that. All this late night working messes my brain up

sated buddha
06 Mar 14,, 06:12
Congratulations Bigfella on the superb away series win and rightfully displacing us from the No. 2 slot. You guys are definitely on the up.

I just hope you aren't peaking too soon before the World Cup though. Would be a shame if we don't get to beat you in the Finals. :whome:

Bigfella
06 Mar 14,, 07:32
Congratulations Bigfella on the superb away series win and rightfully displacing us from the No. 2 slot. You guys are definitely on the up.

Thanks SB. The team performance well exceeded my expectations. I didn't think we would win a test. Especially pleased with the improvement in Warner & Smith and the ongoing fine performance of the pace bowlers. Will be sad to lose Harris, but the replacements are great. Expecting a good performance against Pakistan & India later this year to push us to No.1.


I just hope you aren't peaking too soon before the World Cup though. Would be a shame if we don't get to beat you in the Finals. :whome:

As I said before, I really don't care that much about limited overs cricket. If we are No.1 in tests by the time the World Cup rolls around I honestly won't mind if we go out in the first round. I'm actually more disappointed that I won't have the chance to see Holland play than about any likely Australian results.

A win would be nice, but a loss won't worry me. There are teams that I definitely don't want to see win, but I may be disappointed there. :)

sated buddha
06 Mar 14,, 08:46
As I said before, I really don't care that much about limited overs cricket. If we are No.1 in tests by the time the World Cup rolls around I honestly won't mind if we go out in the first round. I'm actually more disappointed that I won't have the chance to see Holland play than about any likely Australian results.

A win would be nice, but a loss won't worry me. There are teams that I definitely don't want to see win, but I may be disappointed there. :)

I do not understand this. Cricket is a clash between old cricket playing nations. Regardless of the format (ok, I agree a T20 is pushing it - and I like them about as much as you do one days) an international game, especially an ICC trophy event, and most especially the World Cup (with its history which pretty much would equate to our individual life spans to date), would and should definitely get the competitive juices flowing.

I mean, we (two of our countries) over the past 20 odd years have played some of the hardest cricket against each other.

Doesn't Desert Storm still give you goosebumps?

35820

Bigfella
06 Mar 14,, 09:13
I do not understand this. Cricket is a clash between old cricket playing nations. Regardless of the format (ok, I agree a T20 is pushing it - and I like them about as much as you do one days) an international game, especially an ICC trophy event, and most especially the World Cup (with its history which pretty much would equate to our individual life spans to date), would and should definitely get the competitive juices flowing.

I mean, we (two of our countries) over the past 20 odd years have played some of the hardest cricket against each other.

Doesn't Desert Storm still give you goosebumps?

I enjoyed all our World Cup wins, but I don't really care if we lose. That is the difference between this & tests for me. I do care if we lose tests. A lot. To me that is the measure of what really matters in sport. I am pleased to hear about any Australian sporting win. Some matter more than others, but if we don't win a particular Olympic medal or a Rugby World Cup I really don't care. if we lose tests I do.

There is nothing logical about sporting attachments. I get emotional about my local Aussie Rules team - Hawthorn. There is no logic to it. I chose Hawthorn to follow as a child. I was living in a different state. I had been to maybe one or two games of footy, none of them Hawthorn. I chose them because I had lived in Hawthorn for a few years when I was very young (before I can remember) and they were a good team at the time. As a result of that I have become emotionally (and financially) invested in the team. I could just as easily have become invested in Geelong (Dad), Richmond (Grandad), Carlton (Brother) or an half dozen other teams. My mum has zero interest in sport & only ever brings it up in conversation because she has 3 sons & wants to seem interested. Sport is about emotion, so what does it for one doesn't do it for another.

Another example. When I first became interested in Football (soccer) Australia didn't play in major international tournaments. The first team I fell in love with was Holland, who won Euro 88 playing the most beautiful football imaginable. To this day I care as much about Dutch Football as I do about the Socceroos. We are in the same group at this year's world cup. I will be wearing both scarves when we play. I have other friends who live or die on English Premier League results, despite never having set foot in England.

Sport makes no sense. That is why it is so wonderful. Australia writer Keith Dunstan used to say that women could never really appreciate test cricket because they were far to practical & logical. I am inclined to agree.

You mentioned that you don't much care about T20 internationals. You grew up on tests & 50 over a side games. They are what really matters to you. You probably got to watch World Cups on TV as a kid. I grew up loving test cricket. We didn't watch much 1 day cricket on TV or listen to it on the radio then, just tests. The first international games I got to attend were tests. I enjoyed 50 a side games & attended a few when I was younger, but I didn't care as much. The World Cup really didn't mean anything to me growing up. It wasn't telecast. It wasn't on radio that I recall. I saw a few seconds of our 1987 win on TV & didn't see a full game until the World Cup came here in the early 90s. I was in my 20s by then. Now that pay TV rules I rarely see more than the games involving Australia. It just hasn't imprinted itself on my sporting consciousness as Test cricket has. I enjoy it. I especially enjoy seeing minnow nations win games, but I'm not emotionally attached like I am with Tests.

sated buddha
06 Mar 14,, 09:37
Ya I guess your growing up influences mould your sporting likes and favorites. One day cricket is huge in India. Has been from the time of our 83 win. That's where all the money and TV revenue is. I remember I did not get to see our 83 win. My dad did. We did not have a TV then. He was in Calcutta at the time and saw it on the TV of the friends he was staying over at. No one expected us to win. Including us. Beating West Indies in the league games was seen as a fluke. Kapil's 173 at Tunbridge Wells had captured the imagination of the nation. Till today nobody has seen a recording of that innings (except a few press photos)!!!

I went to sleep the night before and woke up to read the newspapers with 5 inch headlines telling me that we were World Champions!!! After that, we got to see reruns of the match every time the World Cup rolled around every 4 years LOL. Till we finally won it again in 2011. Now we get to see Dhoni's agricultural six that sealed it against Sri Lanka (but I still treasure Yuvraj's primal scream on his haunches after beating you guys above that - the moment of the World Cup for me). Quite honestly, I love test cricket too. But as someone working a full time day job, I only have the luxury of seeing the highlights in the evening, and a full day's play on Sundays (if the Test has not finished under 4 days - which most Tests in the modern era tend to).

bolo121
06 Mar 14,, 17:47
A superb win by the Aussies. Proper top drawer test cricket.
Compared to the dull snoozefest of the Asia Cup it was delectable cricket.
I hate the easy way batsmen can score in T20 and ODIs.
Runs only matter when you earn them the hard way without crutches like field restrictions, smaller boundaries, bouncer restrictions and so on.

Oracle
06 Mar 14,, 18:53
Congratulations to NZ and Brendan Mc. 300 runs in a test match is no ordinary feat.

I agree with BF and Bolo121 about test cricket. Test matches bring about the character in players. 5 days, 2700 balls and much patience. Even now, when time permits I prefer watching tests other than ODIs or T20 (sic). Not when India is playing one though, they are the paper tigers of the sub-continent. I love the Ashes though. Fierce intensity.

bolo121
07 Mar 14,, 02:10
Congratulations to NZ and Brendan Mc. 300 runs in a test match is no ordinary feat.

I agree with BF and Bolo121 about test cricket. Test matches bring about the character in players. 5 days, 2700 balls and much patience. Even now, when time permits I prefer watching tests other than ODIs or T20 (sic). Not when India is playing one though, they are the paper tigers of the sub-continent. I love the Ashes though. Fierce intensity.

You know this is when i really miss ganguly. He was an arse at times but he knew how to fight.
About the ashes i usually dont get the time to watch more than an hour or so but yes its usually very intense except for this year's massacre.
From an Indian standpoint either England loses or Australia does so its fun always.

Bigfella
07 Mar 14,, 02:43
A superb win by the Aussies. Proper top drawer test cricket.
Compared to the dull snoozefest of the Asia Cup it was delectable cricket.
I hate the easy way batsmen can score in T20 and ODIs.
Runs only matter when you earn them the hard way without crutches like field restrictions, smaller boundaries, bouncer restrictions and so on.

It was a great series. Precisely the reason why test cricket is the finest of all sports. The need to concentrate & endure physically for 5 days is unique in field sports. The need to combine tactical skill with sporting ability & tactical thinking gives Test cricket a dimension that nothing else has. Tests are sporting contests for the ages.

There are so many limited overs tournaments and so many limited overs matches that they rapidly become meaningless. Afghanistan's win over Bangladesh in the Asia Cup is a rare exception. I have always thought that the money-driven explosion in one day cricket made it much easier for players to contemplate the sort of match fixing that has blighted the game. If you play enough games that just don't matter then it is much easier to cross that mental line that allows you to take money to change events on the field. Disposable cricket.

sated buddha
07 Mar 14,, 08:07
duplicate post

sated buddha
07 Mar 14,, 08:08
Modern cricket and the evolution of skills to a totally different level (especially fielding and batting) is predominantly thanks to the advent and influence of one day cricket. Before one day cricket, most test matches would ened in draws. Sure the purists would call it riveting stuff, but playing for 5 days with no vistor or loser, at the end of the day defies the basic ethos of sport, of war and conflict, of life itself - where someone loses and someone wins. Today tests are much more conclusive thanks to the impact of one day cricket. One day cricket gave cricket its edge. Before that, it was a genteel pastime for gentlemen. One day cricket came and roughed it up. Slapped it into reality.

P.S. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate here. I love Test cricket as much as you guys. But I do not share the purist's down the nose look down on one day cricket as some of you either.

Bigfella
07 Mar 14,, 09:17
Modern cricket and the evolution of skills to a totally different level (especially fielding and batting) is predominantly thanks to the advent and influence of one day cricket. Before one day cricket, most test matches would ened in draws. Sure the purists would call it riveting stuff, but playing for 5 days with no vistor or loser, at the end of the day defies the basic ethos of sport, of war and conflict, of life itself - where someone loses and someone wins. Today tests are much more conclusive thanks to the impact of one day cricket. One day cricket gave cricket its edge. Before that, it was a genteel pastime for gentlemen. One day cricket came and roughed it up. Slapped it into reality.

P.S. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate here. I love Test cricket as much as you guys. But I do not share the purist's down the nose look down on one day cricket as some of you either.

Indeed you are, and showing the same grasp of cricket's history you showed when you named Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara & Dravid as the top batsmen in cricket history. It is interesting that some of the most boring test cricket ever played has been in subcontinental nations obsessed with 1 day cricket. Cricket didn't start when India won the World Cup in 1983 and the influences have travelled both ways. :)

Oracle
07 Mar 14,, 11:18
It was a great series. Precisely the reason why test cricket is the finest of all sports. The need to concentrate & endure physically for 5 days is unique in field sports. The need to combine tactical skill with sporting ability & tactical thinking gives Test cricket a dimension that nothing else has. Tests are sporting contests for the ages.

There are so many limited overs tournaments and so many limited overs matches that they rapidly become meaningless. Afghanistan's win over Bangladesh in the Asia Cup is a rare exception. I have always thought that the money-driven explosion in one day cricket made it much easier for players to contemplate the sort of match fixing that has blighted the game. If you play enough games that just don't matter then it is much easier to cross that mental line that allows you to take money to change events on the field. Disposable cricket.

You said it right. Reason why I give away the 2 IPL tickets I get for free every season. It's meaningless fun, more like a junkie's fix. There are many names, however some at the top of my list IIRC would be Graeme Pollock (SA), Sir Jack Hobbs (ENG), Sir Gary Sobers (WI), Steve Waugh (AUS), Martin Crowe (NZ), George Headey (WI), H. Sutcliffe (ENG) etcetera apart from Sir D. Bradman. Some of these were giants who played at extreme physical risk without protective gears and helmet during their time.

Oracle
07 Mar 14,, 11:23
You know this is when i really miss ganguly. He was an arse at times but he knew how to fight.
About the ashes i usually dont get the time to watch more than an hour or so but yes its usually very intense except for this year's massacre.
From an Indian standpoint either England loses or Australia does so its fun always.

Under Ganguly, the Indian Team learnt how to win matches overseas. He too doesn't have that great a record when it comes to playing away from home, but he did instil the rage in the younger crop to excel. And yes, he's arrogant.

Bigfella
07 Mar 14,, 11:39
You said it right. Reason why I give away the 2 IPL tickets I get for free every season. It's meaningless fun, more like a junkie's fix. There are many names, however some at the top of my list IIRC would be Graeme Pollock (SA), Sir Jack Hobbs (ENG), Sir Gary Sobers (WI), Steve Waugh (AUS), Martin Crowe (NZ), George Headey (WI), H. Sutcliffe (ENG) etcetera apart from Sir D. Bradman. Some of these were giants who played at extreme physical risk without protective gears and helmet during their time.

A good list. Especially nice to see some pre-WW2 players there. Don't forget India's greatest batsman, Sunil Gavaskar - the original 'little master'. It is hard enough for any batsman to make 10,000 runs at 51. You can generally add a few runs to that if they are openers. While Gavaskar had the advantage of batting a lot on pitches that didn't help fast bowlers, he was also able to take it up to the some of the greatest fast bowling attacks of all time on their home turf. His tours of the West Indies in 1971 & 1976 were among the finest performances by a foreign batsman in the Carribean.

They even wrote a song about him. :Dancing-Banana:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tBp1ClIDys

sated buddha
07 Mar 14,, 12:14
Indeed you are, and showing the same grasp of cricket's history you showed when you named Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara & Dravid as the top batsmen in cricket history. It is interesting that some of the most boring test cricket ever played has been in subcontinental nations obsessed with 1 day cricket. Cricket didn't start when India won the World Cup in 1983 and the influences have travelled both ways. :)

I heard your argument when you simply dismissed the greatness of these all-time greats by questioning longevity as a yardstick of greatness and achievement. I have dabbled in some sport competitively in my own life. Of course at a small level. Sub junior and junior Nationals in swimming as well as club and college/univ level in water polo. Longevity is HUGE in sport. HUGER when you talk international sport. Its one thing being at the top of your game for a season or two, quite another thing to dominate over 5 years, a different planet altogether to do that spanning across sporting generations and two decades.

Don't gloss over that by insinuating that any of your pre war greats could probably have done as well had they played for that long or as many matches. I'm sure as a cricket lover and afficnado I don't need to educate you on how much a one day takes out of a player physically compared to a 5 day test, and the recovery proces and time required (and available to modern players) between each. I would posit just the opposite to your argument. The greatness of a Tendulkar lies not only in the voume of the runs he scored against everyone and everywhere. But the fact that he did it consistently for so long. Ditto Ponting and Dravid. True to a lesser extent for Lara (for wholy political and less physical or sporting reasons).

I know exactly what I am dealing with here and where the argument is going next. Safety gear. Uncovered pitches. Bodyline bowling. No bouncer cap. The war years and truncated careers. Even transoceanic ship travel for overseas tours. :)

Fact remains that cricket in the time of the pre war era played by those greats was limited to a lot fewer countries (and hence talent pool). T
he modern greats slugged it out against the entire world - and still came out shining a lot brighter.

And now we have to add Kallis and Sangakara to the list as well.

sated buddha
07 Mar 14,, 12:49
P.S. Bigfella, how did you feel about Tendulkar's suggestion (he has been repeating it for a number of years now) about changing one day cricket to two innings of 25 overs apiece? In effect a one day Test match. No bowler or field restrictions.

Bigfella
07 Mar 14,, 13:25
I heard your argument when you simply dismissed the greatness of these all-time greats by questioning longevity as a yardstick of greatness and achievement. I have dabbled in some sport competitively in my own life. Of course at a small level. Sub junior and junior Nationals in swimming as well as club and college/univ level in water polo. Longevity is HUGE in sport. HUGER when you talk international sport. Its one thing being at the top of your game for a season or two, quite another thing to dominate over 5 years, a different planet altogether to do that spanning across sporting generations and two decades.


Clearly you didn't hear my argument at all, so you are flailing about wildly at a straw man. I denied nobody's 'greatness'. The one being dismissive here is you.


In which case your list is missing some names. Rather a lot actually. Unless you are focussed purely on quantity...an inferior measure. Bradman & Hobbes are clear 1 & 2. Three is tricker, but Sutcliffe is a good bet. Tendulkar mightmake the top 5, but there are oh so many great batsmen to consider. Hammond, Hutton, Hanif Mohammed, Gavaskar (who I would rate India's greatest), Sobers, Headley, Trumper, Miandad, Kallis, Pollock, Barrington & many more.


Longevity is relevant, but, like weight of runs, it is only one measure. However, lets look at some of those names:

Bradman: 20 years
Hobbes: 22 years
Hammond: 20 years
Hutton: 18 years
Hanif Mohammed: 17 years
Gavaskar: 16 years
Sobers: 20 years
Headley: 24 years
Miandad: 17 years (20 including ODIs)
Kallis: 18 years
W.G Grace played for 19, but given the haphazard nature of early cricket tours, would probably have played for longer in a more organized age.

So, many of those players have long careers. They just didn't have as many opportunities in an era before professional cricket. That is why averages matter.

Your list:

Lara: 16 years
Ponting: 17 years
Tendulkar: 24 years
Dravid: 16 years

Other than Tendulkar the rest are nothing special in longevity terms. Tendulkar was able to start playing tests at 16. In most nations & most eras that simply would not have been possible no matter how good you were.


Don't gloss over that by insinuating that any of your pre war greats could probably have done as well had they played for that long or as many matches.

Many of them played for as long or longer


I'm sure as a cricket lover and afficnado I don't need to educate you on how much a one day takes out of a player physically compared to a 5 day test, and the recovery proces and time required (and available to modern players) between each.

For a batsman not very much. Most don't bat much longer than 20 overs. They have plenty of time to recover.


I would posit just the opposite to your argument. The greatness of a Tendulkar lies not only in the voume of the runs he scored against everyone and everywhere. But the fact that he did it consistently for so long. Ditto Ponting and Dravid. True to a lesser extent for Lara (for wholy political and less physical or sporting reasons).


Volume is easier when all you have to do for a living is play cricket & you get to play so much more of it. Volume is a measure of opportunity. You have to be good, but by itself it doesn't outweigh other factors.


I know exactly what I am dealing with here and where the argument is going next. Safety gear. Uncovered pitches. Bodyline bowling. No bouncer cap. The war years and truncated careers. Even transoceanic ship travel for overseas tours. :)


So you know why you are wrong yet you keep repeating yourself. How odd. Putting aside ship travel each of those factors is VERY relevant. if I thought there was any point I would explain each in detail, but clearly there is no point.


Fact remains that cricket in the time of the pre war era played by those greats was limited to a lot fewer countries (and hence talent pool). T
he modern greats slugged it out against the entire world - and still came out shining a lot brighter.


They also got to rack up cheap runs against the likes of Bangladesh & Zimbabwe.

If you can convince yourself that Bradman averaging 99.94 over 20 years or Hobbes with 56 on uncovered wickets over 22 years are behind the 4 you listed then there is simply no point discussing this further.


And now we have to add Kallis and Sangakara to the list as well.

I already added Kallis.

Sangakkara was good, but padded his average on roads & against some terrible teams. Apart from Australia & Zimbabwe he didn't average above 35 outside the subcontinent.

Bigfella
07 Mar 14,, 13:27
P.S. Bigfella, how did you feel about Tendulkar's suggestion (he has been repeating it for a number of years now) about changing one day cricket to two innings of 25 overs apiece? In effect a one day Test match. No bowler or field restrictions.

It has been tried. Didn't work. It wouldn't make any difference for me. One day games are disposable & repetitive.

DarthSiddius
07 Mar 14,, 17:48
Indeed you are, and showing the same grasp of cricket's history you showed when you named Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara & Dravid as the top batsmen in cricket history. It is interesting that some of the most boring test cricket ever played has been in subcontinental nations obsessed with 1 day cricket. Cricket didn't start when India won the World Cup in 1983 and the influences have travelled both ways. :)

You have a notion that there's more to cricket than India. This needs to be rectified, please conform to standard protocol or you'll face disciplinary action.

sated buddha
08 Mar 14,, 06:27
So let me understand this. There are former greats who scored nowhere as many runs as the present modern day ones. But there are some who would put them on a pedestal out of some romantic notion for the days gone by and list a shopping list of excuses why they could not score as many runs (especially against way more limited opposition) but yet should be considered greater than the ones of the modern era who actually went ahead and did - against way more opposition and much wider talent base.

Can't really argue with such impeccable logic.

One can equally very legitimately say that most of the old greats would not have scored as many runs as they did against the type and quality of modern fielding, where slides and dives and boundaries saved (as against the genteel style of running alongside and excorting the ball to the boundary only so that you can retrieve it and throw it back to the bowler after a vigorous rub and shine .....), not to mention much better protection (and hence fearlessness and confidenc) of close in catchers, could very easily have docked a significant proportion of the runs they did actually score. As well as bring down their test averages by a significant number of runs per innings. Can we hazard to put a number to either?

Bigfella
08 Mar 14,, 11:55
So let me understand this. There are former greats who scored nowhere as many runs as the present modern day ones. But there are some who would put them on a pedestal out of some romantic notion for the days gone by and list a shopping list of excuses why they could not score as many runs (especially against way more limited opposition) but yet should be considered greater than the ones of the modern era who actually went ahead and did - against way more opposition and much wider talent base.


It fascinates me that you are so fixated on volume of runs that you treat fewer available test matches or radically different conditions as 'excuses'. It is interesting that you have suddenly stopped talking about longevity. Guess that argument sort of fell flat. If a player could average 56 or 99 over 10, 15 or 20 years under all conditions why assume they couldn't do something similar today? Because it suits your argument.


Can't really argue with such impeccable logic.

The only arguments lacking logic here are yours.


One can equally very legitimately say that most of the old greats would not have scored as many runs as they did against the type and quality of modern fielding, where slides and dives and boundaries saved (as against the genteel style of running alongside and excorting the ball to the boundary only so that you can retrieve it and throw it back to the bowler after a vigorous rub and shine .....), not to mention much better protection (and hence fearlessness and confidenc) of close in catchers, could very easily have docked a significant proportion of the runs they did actually score. As well as bring down their test averages by a significant number of runs per innings. Can we hazard to put a number to either?

And we can hazard that modern players who had to play on uncovered wickets, against fast bowlers sending down 4 bouncers per over or in a time when they could only play half the tests would have scored many fewer runs.

I'm going to make this my last post to you on the subject of cricket history. You have what can only be described as a warped picture of the game I love that seems determined to disrespect most of the greatest players who ever lived. I'm not sure if you are just so obsessed with the cricket you have seen that you simply can't or don't want to imagine that better players might have existed, or if there is some other reason.

One of the things I love about cricket is its wonderful history. It gives the game depth & context. It connects me to the world of my predecessors. It immeasurably enriches the experience of watching the game. Cricketers understand the importance of that history. So do true cricket fans, including others on this board. For some reason you do not. Talking with you about cricket history is like talking to some of our Russian posters about the current events in Crimea - pointless and irritating. So no more. I'll stick to talking with you about the present & recent past.

sated buddha
08 Mar 14,, 15:50
So no more. I'll stick to talking with you about the present & recent past.

I'll raise you one better. Let's not talk cricket at all. I can live with that. Happily. :)

Oracle
08 Mar 14,, 16:09
A good list. Especially nice to see some pre-WW2 players there. Don't forget India's greatest batsman, Sunil Gavaskar - the original 'little master'. It is hard enough for any batsman to make 10,000 runs at 51. You can generally add a few runs to that if they are openers. While Gavaskar had the advantage of batting a lot on pitches that didn't help fast bowlers, he was also able to take it up to the some of the greatest fast bowling attacks of all time on their home turf. His tours of the West Indies in 1971 & 1976 were among the finest performances by a foreign batsman in the Carribean.

They even wrote a song about him. :Dancing-Banana:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tBp1ClIDys

BF,

Yeah Gavaskar & Miandad too. I totally forgot W.G. Grace. He's apparently one great British who remains to be Knighted.

Bigfella
09 Mar 14,, 03:10
BF,

Yeah Gavaskar & Miandad too. I totally forgot W.G. Grace. He's apparently one great British who remains to be Knighted.

Grace is one of those players whose figures tell little of the real story. In the course of a remarkable 43 year First Class career he was one of the key figures in establishing the modern game. Given the hack English players who have received honours for merely being in a winning Ashes team, it seems strange that Grace was never knighted. It was a different time I suppose. One can only lick their lips wondering what an all rounder of his quality might do today.

Oracle
09 Mar 14,, 05:41
Grace is one of those players whose figures tell little of the real story. In the course of a remarkable 43 year First Class career he was one of the key figures in establishing the modern game. Given the hack English players who have received honours for merely being in a winning Ashes team, it seems strange that Grace was never knighted. It was a different time I suppose. One can only lick their lips wondering what an all rounder of his quality might do today.

Agreed. It's amazing, the history behind this great game and the numerous contributions of which most fans including me know little about.

Tronic
09 Mar 14,, 11:15
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/387x532q90/22/va6fc.jpg

Bigfella
09 Mar 14,, 11:42
A few months old, but still worth posting Tronic. Ellyse Perry also plays for Australia's women's soccer team, and would be a sporting superstar....if she were male. As it is her agent has all but given up trying to get her endorsement deals. There was some advance this year when women's one day matches against England were sometimes scheduled before the men's games & were telecast with some of the regular TV commentators taking place. the Australian keeper is the niece of Ian Healy, who also commentates.

There is an unfortunate postscript to this internet meme. When it went viral on facebook it was rapidly accompanied by some truly vile misogynistic comments. I'm sure some of them were just people who thought they were being 'clever', but equally I have no doubt some of them meant it. No doubt pathetic human beings who, having achieved nothing in their own lives, gain some feeling of power from verbally abusing women.

Ellyse Perry meme sparks sexist abuse (http://www.dailylife.com.au/health-and-fitness/dl-sport/ellyse-perry-meme-sparks-sexist-abuse-20140131-31q1t.html)




https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/387x532q90/22/va6fc.jpg

Bigfella
09 Mar 14,, 11:55
Agreed. It's amazing, the history behind this great game and the numerous contributions of which most fans including me know little about.

Here is another one, and one of my favourites. Wilfred Rhodes, Yorkshire all rounder. Played 58 tests for England between 1899 & 1930!!!:eek: Yep, a 31 year career, though not constantly in the team in that period. He was 53 when he played his last test :eek:. He played over 1000 first class games, made almost 40,000 runs & took over 4,100 wickets and batted in every position in the order, including opening the batting for England with the great Jack Hobbes. In the last test he played against Australia, at the age of 49, he took the wickets of Woodfull, Ponsford, Richardson (twice), Collins, and Bardsley for 79 runs. Not only were these among the greatest batsmen of the age (and in several cases of all time), but all aside from Ponsford had or would captain Australia. Still sharp at 49!

I've included the full article below because it is an old piece by Neville Cardus, the cricket writer against whom all others are judged. Wisden used it as an obituary when Rhodes died in 1973 at 96 years of age. Stubborn to the last. ;)



Wilfred Rhodes was Yorkshire cricket personified in the great period of the county's domination, shrewd, dour, but quick to seize an opportunity. For Yorkshire he scored more than 30,000 runs, averaging 30 an innings; for Yorkshire he took 3,597 wickets at 16 runs each. When he was not playing for Yorkshire, in his spare time, so to say, he played for England and amassed 2,000 runs, average 30, and took 127 wickets, at the cost of 26.96 apiece. In his first Test match he was last in the batting order, and at Sydney in the 1903-04 rubber he took part in the most persistent and prolific Test match last-wicket partnership to this day; he helped RE Foster to add 130 for the tenth wicket, his share 40 not out. Eight years afterwards he went in first for England at Melbourne, and against Australia he was the partner of Hobbs in the record first-wicket stand of 323.


His career is already legendary; it does indeed read like a fairy tale. He was not 21 years old when he first bowled for Yorkshire in a match against MCC at Lord's. In the first innings he accounted for Trott and Chatteron; in the second, Trott, Chatteron, CP Foley, and the Hon JR Tufton -- six wickets for 63, a modest beginning, true. But at the season's end he had established himself as the greatest slow left-hand bowler in England with 154 wickets, average 14.60.

During the period in which Rhodes and Hobbs opened every England innings by prescriptive right, Rhodes put aside his bowling. In the Australian rubber of 1911-12 he contributed only 18 overs. But then the war came, reducing the Yorkshire attack. In 1919 Yorkshire needed again the spin and flight of Rhodes, so he picked up his bowling arts exactly where years before he had laid them down, picked them up as though he had not lost touch for a moment. He headed the bowling averages of 1919, 164 wickets, average 14.42 in 1048 overs. He was nearly 42 by the calendar. In 1902 he had gone in last for England at The Kennington Oval when 15 runs were wanted to beat Australia; George Hirst, with whom he always opened Yorkshire's attack, was holding the wicket at the other end. England won by one wicket.

Twenty-four years afterwards, Rhodes in his forty-ninth year was recalled to the England XI and was one of the main causes of Australia's defeat and England's emergence from years in the wilderness. On this, his last appearance for England, Rhodes took the wickets of Woodfull, Ponsford, Richardson (twice), Collins, and Bardsley for 79 runs. He had probably lost by then much of his old quick vitally fingered spin: but as he explained to me: "If batsmen thinks as I'm spinnin' them, then I am" -- a remark metaphysical, maybe, but to the point. At Sydney, in December 1903, on the shirt-fronted polished Bulli soil pitches of that distant halcyon day for batsmen, Australia scored 485, and the might of Australia's champions commanded the crease -- Trumper, Hill, Duff, Armstrong, Gregory. Rhodes bowled 48 overs for 94 runs, five wickets. It was on this occasion that Trumper, the most brilliant of all batsmen, alive or dead, made his famous remark to Rhodes -- "for God's sake, Wilfred, give me a minute's rest."

Rhodes could not turn the ball on the Australian grounds of half a century ago. He prevailed by length, variations of flight, but chiefly by unceasing accuracy of pitch, always demanding close attention from the batsman, the curving arc through the air, the ball dropping on the same spot over by over, yet not on quite the same spot, each over in collusion with the rest, every ball a decoy, some balls apparently guileless, some artfully masked -- and one of them, sooner or later, the master ball. He was economical in action, a few short strides, then a beautifully balanced sideways swing of the body, the arm loose and making a lovely arch. He could go on for hours; the rhythm of his action was in its easy rotation, hypnotic, lulling his victims to the tranced state in which he could work his will, make them perform strokes contrary to their reason and intention. Batsmen of Rhodes's heyday frequently succumbed to his bait for a catch in the deepfield. David Denton had safe hands at long-on; and the score-sheets of the period repeated day by day the rubric -- c Denton b Rhodes. In rainy weather, c Tunnicliffe b Rhodes was familiar proof that Wilfred was at work on a sticky pitch, for Tunnicliffe was the best slip fielder of the century, a long giant with a reach into infinity.

Rhodes really was a slow bowler, not quick and low flight to the pitch, after Lock's manner. At the end of his career he proudly maintained that "Ah were never hooked and Ah were never cut," a pardonable exaggeration considering the proportion of truth in it. Rhodes seldom pitched short. "Best ball on a `sticky' pitch is a spinnin' half-volley," such was his doctrine. And he bowled to his field with the precision of high mathematics. Ernest Tyldesley once told me that he often had no alternative but to play at least three balls an over, on a batsman's wicket, straight to mid-off, an inch off the spot where Rhodes had planted mid-off.

Rhodes made himself into a batsman by practice and hard thinking. He was one of the first batsmen to adopt the full-fronted stance, left shoulder pointing to forward leg. But it is a mistake to suppose that his batting was perpetually dour and parsimonious in strokeplay. In the Test match against the Australians at Lord's in 1912, England had first innings on a rain-damaged pitch. Wisden relates that Rhodes, with Hobbs as company, so monopolised the hitting that his share of 77 runs amounted to 52. On the whole and naturally enough, Rhodes distrusted the romantic gesture. One day in conversation with him, I deplored the absence in modern cricket of the cut. "But it were never a business stroke," he maintained.

While he was actively engaged in the game he was not a man given to affability. He was known as a natterer on the field; and to natter in the North of England means to talk naggingly, most to oneself, with the intention of being overheard. At Old Trafford in the 1930s Lancashire reached a total of 500 against Yorkshire. The Lancashire captain, Leonard Green, was about to take the bowling of Rhodes when the score was 499. Green was sure in his mind that a total of 500 would never again, or not for decades, be achieved by Lancashire against Yorkshire. He therefore determined that come what may, he would himself score the five hundredth run. So he blocked a ball from Rhodes, then ran like the wind. The ball was picked up by Emmott Robinson at silly-point, and hurled to the bowler's end, where it struck Rhodes on the wrist even as Green got home by the skin of his teeth. And in all the scurry and excitement Wilfred was heard to mutter, while he retrieved Robinson's violent throw, "There's somebody runnin' up and down this wicket. Ah don't know who it is, but there's somebody runnin' up and down this wicket."

He was a great player, one of the greatest of cricket's history, not only for his allround performances denoted by the statisticians: nearly 40,000 runs scored in 37 seasons and 4,184 wickets taken. He was great because his cricket was redolent and representative of Yorkshire county. In his old age he lost his eyesight and found his tongue. He accepted his affliction philosophically, and consoled himself by a flow of genial chatter never before heard from him. He attended cricket as long as health would permit. With an acquired sense he was able to follow the play. "He's middlin' the ball right." But it was his delight in his last years to recall the old days. I asked him what he thought of Ranjitsinhji. "He were a good bat were `Ranji.' But I always fancied myself getting him leg before doin' that leg glance of his." I tried again. What did you think of Trumper? "'E were a good bat were Victor." There was no advance on a good bat in Wilfred's vocabulary of praise. Once, though, he let himself go. I asked him his opinion of Sidney Barnes as a bowler. "The best of 'em today is half as good as Barnie." He intended this as a compliment to the champions of today.

I last saw him as his daughter, Muriel, and her husband Tom Burnley, led him out of Trent Bridge at the close of play of a Test match. More than fifty years ago he had first played for England, on this same ground, in 1899, when he was 21. Now he was going home to Canford Cliffs, Bournemouth, white stick in hand, arm in arm with his son-in-law, his face ruddy after hours sitting and listening to cricket, and whether he knew it or not, himself a permanent part of the game's history and traditions.


Wilfred Rhodes | England Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo (http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/19376.html)

sated buddha
31 Mar 14,, 06:38
For those who like cricket in general and not just the way it was played originally when it started ....

We have the World T20 reaching the Semis.

We have India thrashing all comers to top the group (what's new ....)

And we had India thrashing the Aussies yesterday by over 70 runs. In a match where you bat for 20 overs.

Really sad. Just when we thought the Aussies were trying to get back on their feet.

Oh well. I guess the rebuild is going to take a generation more at least. But I must admit. The capitulation from the once-greats was not a pretty sight. Its the kind of mauling one associates with lesser teams like Canada or Ireland or Zimbabwe ....

Bigfella
31 Mar 14,, 08:56
For those who like cricket in general and not just the way it was played originally when it started ....

We have the World T20 reaching the Semis.

We have India thrashing all comers to top the group (what's new ....)

And we had India thrashing the Aussies yesterday by over 70 runs. In a match where you bat for 20 overs.

Really sad. Just when we thought the Aussies were trying to get back on their feet.

Oh well. I guess the rebuild is going to take a generation more at least. But I must admit. The capitulation from the once-greats was not a pretty sight. Its the kind of mauling one associates with lesser teams like Canada or Ireland or Zimbabwe ....

Thanks SB, I just won a bet with myself.

bolo121
31 Mar 14,, 11:25
For those who like cricket in general and not just the way it was played originally when it started ....

We have the World T20 reaching the Semis.

We have India thrashing all comers to top the group (what's new ....)

And we had India thrashing the Aussies yesterday by over 70 runs. In a match where you bat for 20 overs.

Really sad. Just when we thought the Aussies were trying to get back on their feet.

Oh well. I guess the rebuild is going to take a generation more at least. But I must admit. The capitulation from the once-greats was not a pretty sight. Its the kind of mauling one associates with lesser teams like Canada or Ireland or Zimbabwe ....

Who cares its T20 nonsense. I have given each and every match in the tournament a miss.
Plus of course Bangladesh in April spin/sweat/dew heaven.
Now if we manage to do this touring England in July or Australia in
december either ODI or Tests.....that I would love to see.

Bigfella
31 Mar 14,, 12:59
Who cares its T20 nonsense. I have given each and every match in the tournament a miss.
Plus of course Bangladesh in April spin/sweat/dew heaven.
Now if we manage to do this touring England in July or Australia in
december either ODI or Tests.....that I would love to see.

A couple of the Aussie ones were on in prime time & I caught a bit. Enjoyable enough as they went, but fairly forgettable. I actually forgot Australia/India was even on. I got some measure of what it meant to me when I missed the first half of Australia/West Indies to watch my Hawks play a local Aussie rules game. I was more upset at the possibility they might lose a game they should have won (they won in the last minute) than at the fact that Australia did lose a game it should have won.

While I would like to have seen us win the tournament, I'm not sad that our players will get a rest. An injury to a key player would have been a disaster far larger than being bundles out early. Now we get a bit more time to recharge before the real business - taking on Pakistan & then India in tests. I think that if we win both series we go to No.1. Could be the shortest 'generation' in human history. ;)

sated buddha
31 Mar 14,, 20:33
Thanks SB, I just won a bet with myself.

What a remarkable coincidence man. So did I.

sated buddha
31 Mar 14,, 20:35
Who cares its T20 nonsense. I have given each and every match in the tournament a miss.
Plus of course Bangladesh in April spin/sweat/dew heaven.
Now if we manage to do this touring England in July or Australia in
december either ODI or Tests.....that I would love to see.

I always care when we trample roughshod over the Aussies. Keeps the balance right. We learn from the best. And the best have taught us to press harder when the boot is on the neck. Not ease up and let the guy up for breath.

sated buddha
31 Mar 14,, 20:45
Could be the shortest 'generation' in human history. ;)

The fact that the "pup" has for some time now been a dog and getting long in the tooth, things are well on their way to the next generation. Of middle rung mediocrity. Or renaissance. We will see.

Meanwhile we have a world title to win.

Yet again.

Bigfella
31 Mar 14,, 21:34
What a remarkable coincidence man. So did I.

Only works the first time I'm afraid.

sated buddha
31 Mar 14,, 21:42
Only works the first time I'm afraid.

I guess we both deserve a treat.

Bigfella
31 Mar 14,, 21:48
I guess we both deserve a treat.

Mine was knowing the moment you posted this that it was completely hollow.


I'll raise you one better. Let's not talk cricket at all. I can live with that. Happily. :)

I knew there was no way you would be able to restrain yourself.

sated buddha
01 Apr 14,, 07:22
I knew there was no way you would be able to restrain yourself.

Tone down your air of self importance man. Someone not wanting to talk something with you does not mean he does not and will not do so with others. I love cricket and will talk about it all I want. With or without your participation is really not a factor.


Mine was knowing the moment you posted this that it was completely hollow.

The coincidences are startling I must admit.

Mine was knowing that for all the bluster of being a purist and being unaffected by the shorter versions, getting whipped does rankle enough to draw out an (unsolicited) response. :)

Hollow? Hell yeah!

Better luck 2 years on ....

Bigfella
01 Apr 14,, 09:34
Tone down your air of self importance man. Someone not wanting to talk something with you does not mean he does not and will not do so with others. I love cricket and will talk about it all I want. With or without your participation is really not a factor.


The target of your post was very clear.


The coincidences are startling I must admit.

Mine was knowing that for all the bluster of being a purist and being unaffected by the shorter versions, getting whipped does rankle enough to draw out an (unsolicited) response. :)

Hollow? Hell yeah!

Better luck 2 years on ....


Rankled? Unsolicited? Too funny.

SB,

This clearly means a great deal to you. You clearly need this win, so I'm happy for you. I hope that India wins the tournament.

Here in Australia we are so devastated at being knocked out of a biennial T20 tournament that we have all donned colourful scarves & decided not to talk about cricket until October. Its called 'Football Season'.

This Friday night I'll be joining at least 60,000 people at the Melbourne Cricket Ground to watch the greatest team of the modern era, my Hawthorn Hawks, play the team they beat to win last year's Grand Final - Fremantle. The best T20 ever played can't touch what I get to see every other week. :biggrin:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSnjANIFYOk

Bigfella
01 Apr 14,, 10:07
This thread has reached its logical (or illogical) conclusion. It makes more sense to relocate the discussion elsewhere and leave Brendon alone.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sports-bar/65177-cricket-greatest-game-all.html#post957098

bolo121
01 Apr 14,, 12:44
I always care when we trample roughshod over the Aussies. Keeps the balance right. We learn from the best. And the best have taught us to press harder when the boot is on the neck. Not ease up and let the guy up for breath.

T20 is lottery cricket.
Its not a good example of what you want to say.
I would love it if we actually did what you claim when it counted.
The boot was well and truly on our necks in England, South Africa and New Zealand. Pakistan won an ODI series against us and gave SA a rough time in SA.

Thats why I am waiting for July. Its a wonderful chance to beat the fragile and downbeat England.

sated buddha
01 Apr 14,, 13:28
T20 is lottery cricket.
Its not a good example of what you want to say.
I would love it if we actually did what you claim when it counted.
The boot was well and truly on our necks in England, South Africa and New Zealand. Pakistan won an ODI series against us and gave SA a rough time in SA.

Thats why I am waiting for July. Its a wonderful chance to beat the fragile and downbeat England.

You could continue this discussion on the general thread created by BF for cricketing discussions. We've decided to let Brendon RIP.