Yeah, Twenty20 sucks, it's just agricultural swipes against attempted yorkers, ball after ball. Boycott this tournament, everyone.

Written by Judas on 11.09.2007 at 06:32

Yeah, Twenty20 sucks, it's just agricultural swipes against attempted yorkers, ball after ball. Boycott this tournament, everyone.

You know what? I didn't even know that the 2020 wc would be played round about now.

Well, there certainly has been a lot of stuff happening in the cricketing world of late, with the most spectacular events occurring at the Sydney Cricket Ground.

I'd have written this in the 'Happy Birthday' thread but I doubt many people would know who he is, so I'll write it here: Happy 100th birthday to Sir Donald Bradman, the greatest batsman to ever play the game. R.I.P.

The Don: so close, but yet so far (99.94). RIP.

Yes, the greatest batsman ever. why the hell did he have to go for a duck in his last innings? All he needed were 4 measly runs to average 100

Since it is the birthdate of the greatest sportsman ever...
here are some nice stats from cricinfo:

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2008/08/sir_donald_bradman_a_fresh_ana.php

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 27.08.2008 at 17:27

Since it is the birthdate of the greatest sportsman ever...
here are some nice stats from cricinfo:

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2008/08/sir_donald_bradman_a_fresh_ana.php

Well the question must be raised, if you were to take Bradman and put him in the modern game, how would he do? The game has changed so much, and cricketers have just gotten so much better, obviously he is one of the greatest cricketers ever but I would dare say that any modern day batsmen with an average of 45 or above is probably equally as good...

Written by Stuart on 27.08.2008 at 23:35

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 27.08.2008 at 17:27

Since it is the birthdate of the greatest sportsman ever...
here are some nice stats from cricinfo:

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2008/08/sir_donald_bradman_a_fresh_ana.php

Well the question must be raised, if you were to take Bradman and put him in the modern game, how would he do? The game has changed so much, and cricketers have just gotten so much better, obviously he is one of the greatest cricketers ever but I would dare say that any modern day batsmen with an average of 45 or above is probably equally as good...

Just read the link I provided
But like said there... remember he played during the Bodyline series without a helmet, plus the fact pitches weren't covered at the time either. And just look at the gap between the Don and his peers...
Look at we he achieved in just 52 tests, etc. etc.

Didn't get to post on here yesterday as I was attending my Great Grandmother's 100th birthday...yes, born the same day as The Don, however not out
I bloody love cricket, I could watch it all day every day. Bring on summer!
I didn't mind the Twenty20 World Cup - was a great slog-fest - but by the end of it I'd decided it was a bit of a wank.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 28.08.2008 at 00:39

Written by Stuart on 27.08.2008 at 23:35

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 27.08.2008 at 17:27

Since it is the birthdate of the greatest sportsman ever...
here are some nice stats from cricinfo:

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2008/08/sir_donald_bradman_a_fresh_ana.php

Well the question must be raised, if you were to take Bradman and put him in the modern game, how would he do? The game has changed so much, and cricketers have just gotten so much better, obviously he is one of the greatest cricketers ever but I would dare say that any modern day batsmen with an average of 45 or above is probably equally as good...

Just read the link I provided
But like said there... remember he played during the Bodyline series without a helmet, plus the fact pitches weren't covered at the time either. And just look at the gap between the Don and his peers...
Look at we he achieved in just 52 tests, etc. etc.

In fact, the Don's batting average is the most remarkable achievement of ANY sport. He is so many standard deviations above the rest of the field.

Think I'll watch the 'Bodyline' series, to celebrate him.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 28.08.2008 at 00:39

Written by Stuart on 27.08.2008 at 23:35

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 27.08.2008 at 17:27

Since it is the birthdate of the greatest sportsman ever...
here are some nice stats from cricinfo:

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2008/08/sir_donald_bradman_a_fresh_ana.php

Well the question must be raised, if you were to take Bradman and put him in the modern game, how would he do? The game has changed so much, and cricketers have just gotten so much better, obviously he is one of the greatest cricketers ever but I would dare say that any modern day batsmen with an average of 45 or above is probably equally as good...

Just read the link I provided
But like said there... remember he played during the Bodyline series without a helmet, plus the fact pitches weren't covered at the time either. And just look at the gap between the Don and his peers...
Look at we he achieved in just 52 tests, etc. etc.

Whilst I do not deny the fact that he is one of the greatest cricketers ever and I am all too familiar with the statistics all I'm saying is that the level of cricket back then was not at the same level it is now. This bodyline series which is so talked about and was unique for the time (especially because of the lack of body protection) is nothing special by modern day standards where intimidating bowling is the norm that "every" batsmen learns to cope with and yes he was far ahead of his peers, this is not a point I'm disputing, I'm just saying that if you took Sir Don out those days and put him in the modern day game he would not be anything special.

Yes pitches weren't covered, but seam movement was also less because of ball design and the inferior pace of the bowlers of the day. Cricket is just played at a far higher level now, simple as that.

Written by Stuart on 01.09.2008 at 22:57

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 28.08.2008 at 00:39

Written by Stuart on 27.08.2008 at 23:35

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 27.08.2008 at 17:27

Since it is the birthdate of the greatest sportsman ever...
here are some nice stats from cricinfo:

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2008/08/sir_donald_bradman_a_fresh_ana.php

Well the question must be raised, if you were to take Bradman and put him in the modern game, how would he do? The game has changed so much, and cricketers have just gotten so much better, obviously he is one of the greatest cricketers ever but I would dare say that any modern day batsmen with an average of 45 or above is probably equally as good...

Just read the link I provided
But like said there... remember he played during the Bodyline series without a helmet, plus the fact pitches weren't covered at the time either. And just look at the gap between the Don and his peers...
Look at we he achieved in just 52 tests, etc. etc.

Whilst I do not deny the fact that he is one of the greatest cricketers ever and I am all too familiar with the statistics all I'm saying is that the level of cricket back then was not at the same level it is now. This bodyline series which is so talked about and was unique for the time (especially because of the lack of body protection) is nothing special by modern day standards where intimidating bowling is the norm that "every" batsmen learns to cope with and yes he was far ahead of his peers, this is not a point I'm disputing, I'm just saying that if you took Sir Don out those days and put him in the modern day game he would not be anything special.

Yes pitches weren't covered, but seam movement was also less because of ball design and the inferior pace of the bowlers of the day. Cricket is just played at a far higher level now, simple as that.

Cricket is played at a higher level today, that is true. But had the Don lived now he would still have been way ahead of the current players I am sure of that, btw, not only me, but also ALL current day players and media following the game.
As for the pace of the ball, that is one aspect that actually hasn't changed apparently. And neither has the ball design (except of course in ODI where a white ball is used and that one does behave differently).

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 02.09.2008 at 15:31

Written by Stuart on 01.09.2008 at 22:57

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 28.08.2008 at 00:39

Written by Stuart on 27.08.2008 at 23:35

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 27.08.2008 at 17:27

Since it is the birthdate of the greatest sportsman ever...
here are some nice stats from cricinfo:

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2008/08/sir_donald_bradman_a_fresh_ana.php

Well the question must be raised, if you were to take Bradman and put him in the modern game, how would he do? The game has changed so much, and cricketers have just gotten so much better, obviously he is one of the greatest cricketers ever but I would dare say that any modern day batsmen with an average of 45 or above is probably equally as good...

Just read the link I provided
But like said there... remember he played during the Bodyline series without a helmet, plus the fact pitches weren't covered at the time either. And just look at the gap between the Don and his peers...
Look at we he achieved in just 52 tests, etc. etc.

Whilst I do not deny the fact that he is one of the greatest cricketers ever and I am all too familiar with the statistics all I'm saying is that the level of cricket back then was not at the same level it is now. This bodyline series which is so talked about and was unique for the time (especially because of the lack of body protection) is nothing special by modern day standards where intimidating bowling is the norm that "every" batsmen learns to cope with and yes he was far ahead of his peers, this is not a point I'm disputing, I'm just saying that if you took Sir Don out those days and put him in the modern day game he would not be anything special.

Yes pitches weren't covered, but seam movement was also less because of ball design and the inferior pace of the bowlers of the day. Cricket is just played at a far higher level now, simple as that.

Cricket is played at a higher level today, that is true. But had the Don lived now he would still have been way ahead of the current players I am sure of that, btw, not only me, but also ALL current day players and media following the game.
As for the pace of the ball, that is one aspect that actually hasn't changed apparently. And neither has the ball design (except of course in ODI where a white ball is used and that one does behave differently).

They didn't have speed guns back in the day so we can't comment on how fast people like Harold Larwood and company actually bowled, but rather reliable sources (i.e. Larwood himself, Bradman, Gubby Allen, Bill Brown etc) say that they bowled as fast as the quickest fellows bowl today. Also, remember that facing bouncers back then wasn't the same as facing them now, because they weren't protected nearly as well. Bradman averaged around 57 in the Bodyline series. There are exceedingly few players of the current era who average that, even with series against minnows like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, so I don't think it's possible to say that he wouldn't have been as amazing if he had played today's game.

Written by Judas on 02.09.2008 at 15:58

anyone see how australia were annihilated by south africa in the test series, bet you never saw that coming?

Written by Stuart on 17.01.2009 at 21:10

Written by Judas on 02.09.2008 at 15:58

anyone see how australia were annihilated by south africa in the test series, bet you never saw that coming?

Haha, yeah I saw that. After seeing them thoroughly outplayed by India in India last October, I knew they'd be facing an uphill battle. Sure, I knew they'd flatten the Kiwis, but the Proteas have traditionally been tough opponents, and they have a really well-balanced side at the moment. Ashes should be interesting though!

Saw it coming. When we're put under pressure Ponting has little to no idea as to how to handle the situation. He was never the right choice for captain. That said the test series was very entertaining to watch. The back-and-forth was good for cricket in general though it's blatantly obvious we've left it a little too late to keep the test and one day sides at the top of the ranks. Thankfully Hayden has been dropped and they're choosing to play a lot of younger/newer players in the current ODI series, which'll help in the long term but it's a case of too little too late.

Written by Ascendant187 on 24.01.2009 at 15:56

...and they're choosing to play a lot of younger/newer players in the current ODI series, which'll help in the long term but it's a case of too little too late.

I wonder how Warner will develop.
Btw, a question... is there any possibility that Dirk Nannes will be selected in the ODI, or any other squads? I am asking since he is the holder of a Dutch passport. And he will sure be handy for the Dutch when trying to qualify for the next World Cup.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 25.01.2009 at 16:09

Written by Ascendant187 on 24.01.2009 at 15:56

...and they're choosing to play a lot of younger/newer players in the current ODI series, which'll help in the long term but it's a case of too little too late.

I wonder how Warner will develop.
Btw, a question... is there any possibility that Dirk Nannes will be selected in the ODI, or any other squads? I am asking since he is the holder of a Dutch passport. And he will sure be handy for the Dutch when trying to qualify for the next World Cup.

To be completely honest with you it's the first time I've heard the name Dirk Nannes. I don't keep up with the domestic competition as well as I'd like to (mostly for the fact I don't have pay TV and subsequently don't see many games). I'm sure if he can't make it into the Australian ODI squad there's every chance he'll opt to play for the Dutch. It happens all the time.

Written by Ascendant187 on 27.01.2009 at 08:56

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 25.01.2009 at 16:09

Written by Ascendant187 on 24.01.2009 at 15:56

...and they're choosing to play a lot of younger/newer players in the current ODI series, which'll help in the long term but it's a case of too little too late.

I wonder how Warner will develop.
Btw, a question... is there any possibility that Dirk Nannes will be selected in the ODI, or any other squads? I am asking since he is the holder of a Dutch passport. And he will sure be handy for the Dutch when trying to qualify for the next World Cup.

To be completely honest with you it's the first time I've heard the name Dirk Nannes. I don't keep up with the domestic competition as well as I'd like to (mostly for the fact I don't have pay TV and subsequently don't see many games). I'm sure if he can't make it into the Australian ODI squad there's every chance he'll opt to play for the Dutch. It happens all the time.

We actually haven't had that many Australians play for the Dutch national squad. It usualyl happens with South African and the opdd New Zealander.

I think that the last Australian that played for the Dutch national squad was Peter Cantrell. The last time he played for the national team was in the 1996 World Cup and he was the national coach during the last worl Cup in the Caribbean. But he qualified for the Dutch team cause he is married toa Dutch woman and has lived here long enough.
If I remember correctly he only played for Australia in one test as 12th man against England but did take two catches in that match. At that time he was opening batsman for Queensland.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 27.01.2009 at 09:10

Written by Ascendant187 on 27.01.2009 at 08:56

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 25.01.2009 at 16:09

Written by Ascendant187 on 24.01.2009 at 15:56

...and they're choosing to play a lot of younger/newer players in the current ODI series, which'll help in the long term but it's a case of too little too late.

I wonder how Warner will develop.
Btw, a question... is there any possibility that Dirk Nannes will be selected in the ODI, or any other squads? I am asking since he is the holder of a Dutch passport. And he will sure be handy for the Dutch when trying to qualify for the next World Cup.

To be completely honest with you it's the first time I've heard the name Dirk Nannes. I don't keep up with the domestic competition as well as I'd like to (mostly for the fact I don't have pay TV and subsequently don't see many games). I'm sure if he can't make it into the Australian ODI squad there's every chance he'll opt to play for the Dutch. It happens all the time.

We actually haven't had that many Australians play for the Dutch national squad. It usualyl happens with South African and the opdd New Zealander.

I think that the last Australian that played for the Dutch national squad was Peter Cantrell. The last time he played for the national team was in the 1996 World Cup and he was the national coach during the last worl Cup in the Caribbean. But he qualified for the Dutch team cause he is married toa Dutch woman and has lived here long enough.
If I remember correctly he only played for Australia in one test as 12th man against England but did take two catches in that match. At that time he was opening batsman for Queensland.

Cantrell sounds oddly familiar. I'm not sure why.

Written by Ascendant187 on 27.01.2009 at 09:20


Cantrell sounds oddly familiar. I'm not sure why.

Well, maybe cause he was the Dutch coach when we played Australia at the last World Cup in 2007?
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/wc2007/engine/current/match/247466.html

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 27.01.2009 at 09:25

Written by Ascendant187 on 27.01.2009 at 09:20


Cantrell sounds oddly familiar. I'm not sure why.

Well, maybe cause he was the Dutch coach when we played Australia at the last World Cup in 2007?
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/wc2007/engine/current/match/247466.html

Maybe.

And South Africa are the new rulers of Test Cricket (always wanted to say that, and it might even be true!)

Written by Guest on 29.01.2009 at 09:37

And South Africa are the new rulers of Test Cricket (always wanted to say that, and it might even be true!)

Not yet
You're still in second place. but that will most probably change after Australia tours South Africa soon.

Written by Guest on 29.01.2009 at 09:37

And South Africa are the new rulers of Test Cricket (always wanted to say that, and it might even be true!)

Congratulations on grabbing the number one spot in the ODI ranking today.
So, one down and one to go for you guys.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 30.01.2009 at 17:23

Written by Guest on 29.01.2009 at 09:37

And South Africa are the new rulers of Test Cricket (always wanted to say that, and it might even be true!)

Congratulations on grabbing the number one spot in the ODI ranking today.
So, one down and one to go for you guys.

Thanks! Epic series man....and we did it today with half our team, Im very proud! Only checked the last 5 overs after coming home from Uni, a friend of mine prob recorded the whole game so will have to take a look this weekend.

Yeap seems like we're the new unstoppable force Just hope we can nail them here in SA as well - Smith is gonna be back so thats a big boost.

Hows your prep going for the WC? Funny enough, that Ryan Tendoeschate (sp?) in your team was with me in primary school we played for the same u/13 side hehe Glad it worked out for him...I wasnt meant for greatness I suppose

Written by Guest on 30.01.2009 at 17:58


Yeap seems like we're the new unstoppable force

That has been said about you guys before and then it all derailed. That was in the Donald, Cronje era.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 30.01.2009 at 18:00

Written by Guest on 30.01.2009 at 17:58


Yeap seems like we're the new unstoppable force

That has been said about you guys before and then it all derailed. That was in the Donald, Cronje era.

Well you have to remember, this is the first time we've ever taken a series in Australia since our readmission....thats 18 years of suffering against them and now we took the ODI and Test series. No team has taken a series there since 1993 where then Windies won so this is a big deal. Over here in SA its actually seen as the greatest sporting achievement by any South African sports team - heads and shoulders above anything from the Donald era.

And I think the fact that Warne and McGrath isnt there anymore just shows how Ponting isnt the great captain people thought he was. Its nice to have 2 of the greatest bowlers in cricketing history play under you for over a decade. The cool thing is, the new players in our side dont suffer from the trauma and losses from our earlier years (especially that horrible 1999 WC semi-final), guys like Duminy who only just started out totally destroyed the Aussies.

But who knows...perhaps its short lived, but I think this is our best chance yet. All I know is our team has incredible depth, Ive never seen anything like it from our team and Ive watched the majority of games we've played since the 1992 World Cup. Our team is seriously young and proved they are head-strong and can play under pressure - something none of our other teams of before could muster.

Written by Guest on 30.01.2009 at 18:07


And I think the fact that Warne and McGrath isnt there anymore just shows how Ponting isnt the great captain people thought he was. Its nice to have 2 of the greatest bowlers in cricketing history play under you for over a decade. The cool thing is, the new players in our side dont suffer from the trauma and losses from our earlier years (especially that horrible 1999 WC semi-final), guys like Duminy who only just started out totally destroyed the Aussies.

But who knows...perhaps its short lived, but I think this is our best chance yet.

Although Ponting was the official captain it was clear that the true field captain was always Warne. Warne should have been captian without a doubt but because of his off-field antics was never made into one.
Although I am a huge fan of the Aussies it was about time they got bumped off the nr. 1 spot. Dominance for that long a period is never good for a sport.
Well thank God the South Africans are and will be the new nr. 1 as long as it isn't England I am fine with it.