Why the feck are you worried about my career ?vijay said:
"Lara head and shoulders above Sachin" => Vijay = cluless Idiot
Also Gavaskar and Viv were from different generations?
"Lara head and shoulders above Sachin" => Vijay = cluless Idiot
Also Gavaskar and Viv were from different generations?
Spoony said:
You're shit at cricket because you are a spastic.
We beat India.
All the other times we let them beat us was because we took pity.
vijay said:
I meant him.
Slabber said:
Sure but he did face Hadlee, Thommo, Lille, Imran, Kapil, Botham, Akram, Younus and a lot of other bowlers who were as good as the West Indian quicks.
He did play first class cricket in the carribean and if he had struggled against
the quickies, he probably would not have made it.
crappycraperson said:
This is amusing this.
1) Lara
2) Slabber
3) Tendulkar
4) Richards
5) Spoony
8127536518725637476543) Vijay
2) Slabber
3) Tendulkar
4) Richards
5) Spoony
8127536518725637476543) Vijay
Melbourne Red said:
I'm great at cricket. I wouldn't be if I was born in Bangladesh.
India were cheating. They wanted to lose.
This thread turned out better than I hoped.
crappycraperson said:
May be if you can take your time away from the internet and mingle with others, you can learn a bit more about culture and save your pocket money
I again suggest you to look in to your career rather than wasting your time and dad's money on the internet. .
Dubai_Devil said:
Yep, its kept me amused while I wait till kick off.
vijay said:
No one was as good as Malcolm Marshall.
crappycraperson said:
Same generation. I think Sunny started first, and ended his career well before Viv did.
Slabber said:
Not sure about that.
vijay said:
What a bizzare sequence of rebuttals.
Keep it up for 15 more minutes.
vijay said:
You're one to talk, your interests are looking for a job and your occupation is blowjob. Your parents must be so proud.
Slabber said:
Thats spastic...No one was as combative as Lille or as fast as Thommo. Viv has treated them like medium pacers even in a hostile perth wicket.
vijay said:
Lillee.
Lille is a daft place in France.
Dubai_Devil said:
Dont read too much in to my profile. Iam supporting my parents not depending on them. So they are really proud.
I already made that pointSlabber said:
You are going to regret that statement in few monthsSpoony said:
crappycraperson said:
and I pointed out he faced excellent quicks.
Spoony said:
I think he's the best fast bowler of all time. And his stats over his relatively short career suggest as much.
vijay said:
No it isn't. It's a very arguable case.
crappycraperson said:You are going to regret that statement in few months
If we lose, it'll be down to Delhi-belly.
Slabber said:
Holding was better.
vijay said:
He played 3 matches at the Wacca.
In 75/76 he made 12 in his only innings, and in 84/85 he made 10.
Lillee and Thompson weren't around for his other innings in 88/89.
Sorry, but I was bored.
You have been a bit of spastic over the course of last few months , suggested by your posts and threads spread across the forum.vijay said:
Anyway you said you were listing best batsman fromm different generation while Viv and sunny belonged to same.
Clueless yet again...
I would much boast rather about beating aussies if I were you.
crappycraperson said:
How long are you going to embarass yourself? If you have any differerence of opinion its better to leave it as an opinion or debate rather than throwing unmitaged abuse... That reflects your maturity.
Melbourne Red said:
I am wrong then. But he did play well against Australia when the windies toured them and also did well agaisnt Lillie back in the Carribean.
Alright feckers, I'm off to watch Liverpool stuff City.
Spoony said:
Melbourne Red said:
Bye observe the one minute silence for the greatest footballer ever,,,
Slabber said:
He had a longish career, Slabbs. 376 wickets. Don't get me wrong I think was fantastic. But arguments can be made for a few quickies. Here's some stats:
Tests 60 12680 5898 249 8/92 14/149 23.68 2.79 50.92 Holding
Tests 81 17584 7876 376 7/22 11/89 20.94 2.68 46.76 Marshall
Tests 70 18467 8493 355 7/83 11/123 23.92 2.75 52.01 Lillee
Tests 88 19458 8258 362 8/58 14/116 22.81 2.54 53.75 Imran
Tests 87 16224 8788 373 7/76 13/135 23.56 3.25 43.49 Waqar
Tests 58 13169 5433 259 6/56 9/108 20.97 2.47 50.84 Garner
Tests 104 22627 9779 414 7/119 11/110 23.62 2.59 54.65 Akram
Tests 86 21918 9611 431 9/52 15/123 22.29 2.63 50.85 Hadlee
Just clarifying like.vijay said:
It seems like you are the one with low IQ since Gavaskar and Viv certainly belonged to same era.vijay said:
Well done Lara.. but a little like everything youv done in the last 5 years, it was unimportant.
Hes better than Sachin right now, because Sachin is still to find is feet after injuries. Though he doesnt look like ever regaining his old touch. As for comparisons of two players careers in general, theres no point really, theres a gulf between them(IMO). Lara started his career far better than Sachin did, but barring the last year, for about 6 or 7 years before that Sachin has been easily better. And like all true greats do, Sachin did things big time, he always played his best against the very best..(australia).. he took Warne apart, his contests with Mcgrath(the best fast bowler of their generation) were actually contests. Unlike Lara who really struggles against Mcgrath.
Add to that, the World cups.. which except in the minds of few English on this site, is the biggest stage in cricket. Theres nothing bigger than the world cup. The Australians actually cared more for winning a test series in India than the Ashes, a couple of years back. And true greats always perform on such big stages.. and Sachin did, i dont think there has been a batsman who has a world cup record quite like his.. He was brilliant in 96, good in 99 and carried a young Indian team to the final in 2003. The Indian and West Indian teams were quite similar when these two hit their strides.. Sachin carried us for almost a decade, whereas Lara never really inspired Windies. I consider even Dravid better than Lara. But thats just my opinion.
Hes better than Sachin right now, because Sachin is still to find is feet after injuries. Though he doesnt look like ever regaining his old touch. As for comparisons of two players careers in general, theres no point really, theres a gulf between them(IMO). Lara started his career far better than Sachin did, but barring the last year, for about 6 or 7 years before that Sachin has been easily better. And like all true greats do, Sachin did things big time, he always played his best against the very best..(australia).. he took Warne apart, his contests with Mcgrath(the best fast bowler of their generation) were actually contests. Unlike Lara who really struggles against Mcgrath.
Add to that, the World cups.. which except in the minds of few English on this site, is the biggest stage in cricket. Theres nothing bigger than the world cup. The Australians actually cared more for winning a test series in India than the Ashes, a couple of years back. And true greats always perform on such big stages.. and Sachin did, i dont think there has been a batsman who has a world cup record quite like his.. He was brilliant in 96, good in 99 and carried a young Indian team to the final in 2003. The Indian and West Indian teams were quite similar when these two hit their strides.. Sachin carried us for almost a decade, whereas Lara never really inspired Windies. I consider even Dravid better than Lara. But thats just my opinion.
Ahem I think you are terribly under rating Lara.
It is true that he has won more matched on his own that Sachin. And he too had to carry an even worse team than India's for quite some time. He had the support of like of Walsh, Ambrose too start with but off late WI has been shite.
The main thing that counts against him is consistency over the last 4-5 years. I recall once he used to average about 65 in test cricket, it has come down by around 10 since.
With WI cricket waning he except in one match out of 10, has shaded off a bit.
It is true that he has won more matched on his own that Sachin. And he too had to carry an even worse team than India's for quite some time. He had the support of like of Walsh, Ambrose too start with but off late WI has been shite.
The main thing that counts against him is consistency over the last 4-5 years. I recall once he used to average about 65 in test cricket, it has come down by around 10 since.
With WI cricket waning he except in one match out of 10, has shaded off a bit.
crappycraperson said:
Sad it had taken so long for you to figure that out...
Even Sir Sobers was playing when Gavaskar made his debut... but Sobers was the king during his time and the only players that he could be compared with are South African greats like Procter and Barry Richards.
Their careers overlapped but Sunny was widely regarded as one of the best much earlier than Richards got the recognition. He scored nearly 700 runs against the Windies in the Caribbean without any protective gear- no batsmen that could ever dream of.
Viv was talented but earned the iconic status only in the late seventies in the series against England that became more famous after the racist remark directed on the West Indians. Richards played more devastating knocks in the late 70's and in the 80's play and continuted to play longer than Gavaskar. Gavaskar was already a great in the mid 70's after his comeback hundred against England at the old trafford followed by a great sereis in the Carribean.
You could spin it all you want, they belonged to the same era.vijay said:
Sad it had taken so long for you to figure that out...
Even Sir Sobers was playing when Gavaskar made his debut... but Sobers was the king during his time and the only players that he could be compared with are South African greats like Procter and Barry Richards.
Their careers overlapped but Sunny was widely regarded as one of the best much earlier than Richards got the recognition. He scored nearly 700 runs against the Windies in the Caribbean without any protective gear- no batsmen that could ever dream of.
Viv was talented but earned the iconic status only in the late seventies in the series against England that became more famous after the racist remark directed on the West Indians. Richards was more devastating in the 80's than in the 70's continued to play longer even after Gavaskar. Gavaskar was already a great in the mid 70's after his comeback hundred against England at the old trafford followed by a great sereis in the Carribean.
crappycraperson said: