That period for a few years he had when he seemed to have lost patience or had brain snaps. Couldnt seem to build or construct an innings. Turned his nose up at 1.s 2's and 3's.
Then the Captaincy. Same old same old thingy about skippers..young or old..thrown in and losing form.?
What would he have achieved. I am talking the big thing here. AVERAGES.
My current thoughts are after a lot of thought is that Brian basically underacheived.
You have to go back and look at the raw talent. It seemed like it was god given and automatic. But something..or 2 things went wrong during his test career. Does this say then that Sir Don WAS actually God.?
When you try and get every player around you to perform and you are at a wits end to concentrate on batting..how then do some big talents fail and some succeed.?
I believe a final test career average is really what counts in the hall of fame. In the real after life of cricket. What stands out. What folk remember and talk about.
I am not bagging the great man here...merely pointing out I believe he was a great underacheiver till the end. He could have been at least 2nd or thir best of all time. Instead he is simply in a few folks top ten or twenty.
Due mainly to a captaincy that basically failed and a long period at the crease of blatant overconfidence.

Sir Don wasn't God, you know that and I do too. JUst a myth created by the WEstern world when it dominated things. FFS, Donni couldn't even play proper spinners in the Conti and he cried like a girl when the ball was bounced at him. Me thinks he's a big girl !!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bowled Shine:
Sir Don wasn't God, you know that and I do too. JUst a myth created by the WEstern world when it dominated things. FFS, Donni couldn't even play proper spinners in the Conti and he cried like a girl when the ball was bounced at him. Me thinks he's a big girl !!!

It hurts that the subcontinent has never produced a player even half as good, eh?

They tried. Its a rare thing to produce someone like that. He sort of just appears. Mostly self made..not the trained up coached type..just appears...then goes away to much joy of having been seen..not sadness at the thought of no more. Almost a God. Mortal it seems now,.. but then...??
There probably will be a curry muncher in the future that aspires to these heights but it seems still ever so far away.

quote:

Originally posted by Bowled Shine:
Sir Don wasn't God, you know that and I do too. JUst a myth created by the WEstern world when it dominated things. FFS, Donni couldn't even play proper spinners in the Conti and he cried like a girl when the ball was bounced at him. Me thinks he's a big girl !!!

A myth with an average of 99.4. against the BEST players of his era including any country he played against.

I guess you support Jardine's filthy leg theory.

What would Donni have averaged without that cheating seies?

110?

Back to the topic at hand.
How close would brian have come if not for the two downsides I outlined in his career.?
They cost him dearly would you say.?

quote:

Originally posted by Gabba Dan:
I guess you support Jardine's filthy leg theory.

What would Donni have averaged without that cheating seies?

110?

Knuckle-dragging sook of the sookiest order.

quote:

Originally posted by Comical Smoking Monkey:

quote:

Originally posted by Gabba Dan:
I guess you support Jardine's filthy leg theory.

What would Donni have averaged without that cheating seies?

110?

Knuckle-dragging sook of the sookiest order.

Gotta agree with that, Monkey.

quote:

Originally posted by I just want peace:
Back to the topic at hand.
How close would brian have come if not for the two downsides I outlined in his career.?
They cost him dearly would you say.?

Brian played well when he was set in certain pitch conditions which helped his average by accumulating huge totals.

Otherwise he was susceptible early on when the pitches were bowler friendly.

Not a consistent player in the big league on a dicey pitch.

Then how do you rate better?

Bradman or Lara?

Then we'll see who is the sook.

I go Bradman by a country mile.

quote:

Originally posted by Gabba Dan:
Then how do you rate better?

Bradman or Lara?

Then we'll see who is the sook.

I go Bradman by a country mile.

I go Bradman, not by a country mile. Doesn't make you any less of a sook though...

Gabba, just leave it 'coz you're making Aussies look bad.

quote:

Originally posted by William B.:
Gabba, just leave it 'coz you're making Aussies look bad.

You are dead right.

But they're dumb enough to believe their own smoke.

This new editorial policy sure seems to be working. Well done, Ed.

squeaky clean i am sure.

OK I admit it I don't rate Lara compared to Richards and LLoyd.

If you want to talk W.I. sook then Brian's your
man.

An average of 52.88 is modest considering that he scored umpteen double hundreds and broke the world record twice with a triple and then a quadruple hundred. For a period in his career (1998-2001) he seemed jaded, in April 2001 his average dipped 47.61, the lowest since his pre-world-record-score average in 1993.

IMO he didn't play enough gritty hundreds, stealing singles and 2's when he couldn't find the boundary. Glancing through his list of scores it's amazing that for someone of his talent he was out so often between 30-70, i.e. when he was seemingly set. If he'd converted more of these scores into big hundreds he probably would have averaged well over 60.

quote:

Originally posted by Gabba Dan:
OK I admit it I don't rate Lara compared to Richards and LLoyd.

If you want to talk W.I. sook then Brian's your
man.

S'not like we can trust the judgement of some bloke who reckons that Hayden's not a FTB

quote:

Originally posted by S F Barnes:
An average of 52.88 is modest considering that he scored umpteen double hundreds and broke the world record twice with a triple and then a quadruple hundred. For a period in his career (1998-2001) he seemed jaded, in April 2001 his average dipped 47.61, the lowest since his pre-world-record-score average in 1993.

IMO he didn't play enough gritty hundreds, stealing singles and 2's when he couldn't find the boundary. Glancing through his list of scores it's amazing that for someone of his talent he was out so often between 30-70, i.e. when he was seemingly set. If he'd converted more of these scores into big hundreds he probably would have averaged well over 60.

You are basically reiiterating what I just said Sid.

On one of his tours of Australia, Lara spent most of his time with a sensational looking female. He failed in most of his innings on that tour but I doubt if he was too concerned.

I guess he spends most of his time with sensational looking women but that one seemed to totally wreck his concentration.

quote:

Originally posted by Gabba Dan:
OK I admit it I don't rate Lara compared to Richards and LLoyd.

If you want to talk W.I. sook then Brian's your
man.

Lara was a genius - even more so than Richards and Lloyd.

If you look at Lara's career the toughest matches were played against Australia, its always worth seeing how a player performs against the best around at the time - but Lara still has a stunning record: 9 Test centuries at an average of 51.

From spanking Warne all round the SCG to the tune of 277, via a match-winning 132 on a Perth flier vs McGrath and Reiffel, 182 at Adelaide against McGrath, Gillespie and MacGill when no-ne else on his side could reach 50. To prove it wasn't a fluke he did it again 5 years later: 226 against McGrath, Lee and Warne this time. Two furious half-centuries to help set up the greatest run-chase of all time at Antigua.

All that and I still haven't mentioned his trilogy of hundreds in 1999 against Australia, when he dragged himself from the brink of despair to almost single-handedly defy the world's best team and claim a draw in the series. That 153* at Bridgetown is the most compelling innings I have ever seen.

So rather than worry about the troughs, how about remembering that the peaks were higher than most batsmen can even dream of.

By comparison Richards record against the best bowling attacks is decent but not as spectacular: 426 runs at 39 against Lillee and Thomson at their peak, followed up with one century and 546 runs from 10 innings in later encounters when they were somewhat past their peak.

As Imran's Pakistan took over the mantle of best bowling attack in the 80's Viv managed one outstanding century 120* out of 249 at Multan and another masterly century at Port-of-Spain in 1988. But 2 centuries and an average of 47 against Imran, Sarfraz and Wasim in the four main series he played against them is a little patchy. Especially when you consider the back-up bowling is of a much lesser quality than Lara would have faced against Australia.

Lara - genius

Richards and Lloyd - very fine artists, but without the magic Lara had. Richards for a while had something else, something Lara never had - a primal brutality - but apart from a brief incredible period in 1976, I think Richards' artistic gifts were overshadowed by Lara's.

yet he seemed to be MaGraths BUNNY...
funny that.!

quote:

Originally posted by Comical Smoking Monkey:

quote:

Originally posted by Gabba Dan:
OK I admit it I don't rate Lara compared to Richards and LLoyd.

If you want to talk W.I. sook then Brian's your
man.

S'not like we can trust the judgement of some bloke who reckons that Hayden's not a FTB

Read my lips.

Matt is good but don't confuse me with Smeggers.

I have opinions in cricket but no bias.

Check my posts.

I have never wrapped Matt.