Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Milo 128507 I cannot agree with this as a hard and fast rule, I'm afraid. It is this argument (one I have always refuted) that Asians use for criticising the greatness of Bradman and also Lillee.
When the West Indian and Australian rebels went to South Africa (Clarke, Croft, Hogg, Alderman, Rackemann - all very good bowlers), Pollock almost in his 40s showed his early test career was far from a Blewett like purple patch. The same goes for Barry Richards - World series cricket showed that he was still able to excel at the top ten years down the line. We have enough evidence to suggest they were great batsmen. |
McGrath had a great record in Asia.
Those rebel bowlers you mention were nearing the end of their careers or were ordinary.
I did not say Pollock and Richards were not good, they were,they were not great.
Through no fault of their own they don't have the long records to say they were great.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wanderer 128511
You say: They could have been great, if they had the chance proof it. Yet you also say they w ould NOT have been great HAD they had the chance to proof it??  |
1st sentance.
Proof.
It was unfortunate they did not get the chance to prove themselves as great,so without the proof, they are not.
They would have been good but not seen in the near god like reverance they are now.
Would we worship Maralyn or J.Dean if we could see what they looked like as 70 year olds?
2nd sentance
Its an opinion derived from my reasoning.
They are overated pretty much like all South African cricket is.
Two batsmen with less than 3000 test runs between them are not greats whatever the circumstances.