The cricket thread

axisus

minimoog said:

Find your Australian batsman name by adding 'b Broad' to your surname.

That's a classic!

Heartfeltdawn

axisus said:

He didn't do that one where he swings the bat between his legs shouting "it's my penis"?

He should try batting with his dick. More likely to find the middle of that than the middle of a bat right now. 

rsvmark

Would it be safe to say that Australia play better at home...... But can't play a broad?

scrumhalf

274-4 at stumps on the first day on its own is a good day's Test cricket.

To have reached that after skittling out the Aussies for 60 is the stuff of dreams.

And how much do I enjoy watching Joe Root bat? If his back holds out I can see him breaking all sorts of records.

scrumhalf

Headline in the Sydney Morning Herald:

POMICIDE!

crunchman

The websites of the Aussie papers are quite fun to read at the moment!

SimonRF

I've regularly wondered about the point of Twitter. Now I get it.

"If you want to know what it feels like to be an Australian Batsman, find a large field, walk to the middle, Stop then walk back"

Teetonetal

too many commentators saying things like England have all but one the ashes.. would be unlikely but this could end as a draw, the forecast looks ok but not wonderful..

scrumhalf

It's unlikely to be repeated, but the first test of the 2010/11 Ashes:
England - 260
Australia - 481
England - 517/1
Australia 107/1

It ain't over until David Boon sings.

hungrymark

What do you call an Australian who's good with a bat?

A vet

Teetonetal

England's luck balancing up for yesterday...

crunchman

4 wickets in 27 balls.

Good to see Stokes getting in on the action after not even getting a bowl in the first innings.  It does make a difference having a 5th bowler.

scrumhalf

crunchman said:

4 wickets in 27 balls.

Good to see Stokes getting in on the action after not even getting a bowl in the first innings.  It does make a difference having a 5th bowler.

Be fair, by the time he would have come on there was nobody left to bowl at.

crunchman

He has got the short end of it a bit with his bowling.  He either misses out like he did in the first innings here, or he comes on when the ball is 20 overs old and the batsmen are well set.

rsvmark

So my son and I were watching some vintage Shane Warne stuff. (To be fair I think he has matured into a pretty good commentator) and I mentioned he was 'one of' the best bowlers ever. Could someone with greater cricket knowledge enlighten me as to who was the greatest bowler of all time please

Paul_C

rsvmark said:

So my son and I were watching some vintage Shane Warne stuff. (To be fair I think he has matured into a pretty good commentator) and I mentioned he was 'one of' the best bowlers ever. Could someone with greater cricket knowledge enlighten me as to who was the greatest bowler of all time please

a quick google suggests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Barnes

littlegreenman

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11828743_10152935111306712_135112917511995429_n.jpg?oh=07dc9663b58830a904d673da3a8948a6&oe=5684455E

hungrymark

Australian

rsvmark;734383" said:

So my son and I were watching some vintage Shane Warne stuff. (To be fair I think he has matured into a pretty good commentator) and I mentioned he was 'one of' the best bowlers ever. Could someone with greater cricket knowledge enlighten me as to who was the greatest bowler of all time please

Depends what you're looking at. Murali got more wickets than Warne, but Warne got his against a greater range of opponents and in a wider range of conditions. He was also far more spectacular. Legspin is also notoriously difficult to bowl compared to off spin. Then you've got Mcgrath, Walsh and Ambrose who were pace bowlers (fewer wickets because they bowled fewer overs, pace is more strenuous than spin).

You're probably thinking my suggestions look weighted towards the modern era, and you're right. I think it's harder bowling in the modern era than it seemed to have been in the past. Covered pitches make it more predictable for batsmen.

I'd say Warne.

Heartfeltdawn

rsvmark said:

So my son and I were watching some vintage Shane Warne stuff. (To be fair I think he has matured into a pretty good commentator) and I mentioned he was 'one of' the best bowlers ever. Could someone with greater cricket knowledge enlighten me as to who was the greatest bowler of all time please

 

I think he's a terrible commentator, prone to massive amounts of repetition. He's not a patch on Glenn McGrath who has been absolutely superb in this Test when it comes to analysing seam bowling and is a far more varied speaker.

There is no greatest bowler of all time just as there is no greatest batsman. Bradman was a statistical freak but the finest man to ever draw willow? No. On a good pitch he had a technique that worked, meaning he could defend tightly and score quite quickly for the time. He certainly wasn't considered a genius on a sticky wicket. Victor Trumper and Jack Hobbs are oft mentioned as being far superior to Bradman when the pitch was difficult.  

Heartfeltdawn

hungrymark said:

Depends what you're looking at. Murali got more wickets than Warne, but Warne got his against a greater range of opponents and in a wider range of conditions. He was also far more spectacular. Legspin is also notoriously difficult to bowl compared to off spin. Then you've got Mcgrath, Walsh and Ambrose who were pace bowlers (fewer wickets because they bowled fewer overs, pace is more strenuous than spin).

You're probably thinking my suggestions look weighted towards the modern era, and you're right. I think it's harder bowling in the modern era than it seemed to have been in the past. Covered pitches make it more predictable for batsmen.

I'd say Warne.

Murali was as much a wrist spinner as Warne was in terms of how much influence the wrist had on the delivery. Absolutely unique bowler, not quite as good as Warne, but still had to learn and perfect his art and did it under incredible scrutiny. There's also the side matter that Murali could bowl leg breaks: ever see Warne turn an offie?

As great as Warne was and always will be, McGrath was the absolute man for me. 

Warne - 708 Test wickets. 328 wickets (46%) were batsmen batting 7 to 11. 380 (54%) wickets were batsmen batting 1 to 6. 

McGrath - 563 Test wickets. 186 wickets were from the 7 to 11 position batsmen (34%). 377 wickets were in the top order (66%). 

Respective averages against the 1-6 top order? Warne took 380 wickets at 35.23. McGrath took 377 wickets at 22.54. So McGrath took more of the best batsmen within his total haul and at a lower average. He also succeeded against India and in India: Warne comparatively failed in both regards .

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/8166.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/6565.html?class=1;template=results;type=bowling 

By comparison, the great Malcolm Marshall took 376 wickets. 238 were top order 1-6 batsmen, 63% of his wickets, at an average of 21.58. Dale Steyn has 402 Test wickets, 240 of which are 1-6 top order players (59%) at an average of 25. That's the class McGrath was in. Bizarre though it is, I think he's horrifically underrated as a bowler. 

One more thing: uncovered pitches were not all sticky dogs that were nightmares to bat on. From memory, there was some incredibly dull cricket being played after the Golden Age thanks to some of those wickets. 

Greatest bowler ever? SF Barnes. Home and away. Seamer, leg breaks, spin, swing, the works. 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/8996.html