World Cricket II

Point to note - these were the players available to SRT during his captaincy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sathya_1979

Shall we start a poll - Worst players to have played for India in Tests (Qual: Min 5 Matches Played)?

---

koot itea.

1) Vikram Rathore
2) MSK Prasad
3) Devang Gandhi
4) Tinu Yohanan
5) Paras Mhambrey
6) Noel David(Did he play tests?). If yes, I think he'll be the undisputed winner

---

Ajit Agarkar? But he has a test century. Paravaalliyaa?

Agarkar, more than the century, has a match winning 6 wicket haul(against Australia, in Australia, no less) :shock:

So, indha groupla sErka manasu varala.

Poll here? domestic cricket/BCCI would be correct thread i think... :?

i like to see our hubbers choices for World XI for current players.,, :D

opener akash chopra ?

Plum r u sure that these players played atleast 5 tests?

Noel David was in team during WI tour, but I don't think he played in any tests. Remember seeing him while fielding, probably as a substitute.

No, these were the names that came to mind.
I am not inclined to spend time on Cricinfo to answer this :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlemaster1982

Noel David was in team during WI tour, but I don't think he played in any tests. Remember seeing him while fielding, probably as a substitute.

---

He played onedayers. Not sure about tests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajithfederer

What can Richards do if he had a good team. The point is he outshone everyone even in his team in terms of batting. Even if he had a bad team he would still play in his own terms. That's Richads for you.

Sheer impact on the game. Richards >> Lara. I mean he was one of the Idols of Tendulkar.

You gotta be kidding me, The pace faced by Richards >>>>>> Lara. I am talking about in the non helmet days.

Sheer match winning performances, Again Richards >>> Lara.
Even in ODI's Richards averages 47. S/R is in the 90's in the days when 70's was considered good.

He bowled even part time spin and has taken 100+ wickets in ODI's.

Tests, Sollave vendam. Average of 50 in those days is near 60 in present days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steveaustin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajithfederer

Enna man kelvi idhu?? :shock:.

Lara - Richards is a no contest for me actually. Viv just trumps Lara hands down.

---

Period matters. :)

For me, Prince Lara triumphs over King Richards because of the backup that King had. When it comes to spin, many of us will ask who is Richards??? Lara is a better player of pace bowling than Richards of spin. King of pace, minnow of spin. Further, Richards had a well balanced strong team both with the bat and ball unlike Lara. It would have been very interesting if Richards had the team like Lara. What he would've done it? Whether he would've gone for attack or defend? Can anyone answer these questions??? WI started to slide under the period of King Viv's captaincy itself. Lara beats Viv hands down when it comes to sheer variety of strokes and elegance.

---

---

Kood debate - "King" Richards vs. "Prince" Lara. Little dicely one to pick but I would go with Richards simply because Richards brand of batting is pretty unique, one-of-it's-kind. He had a very good eye, quick reflexes and gifted timing. Agree with Feddy on the "impact" aspect. Richards impact on the game is for others to follow and emulate.

Also, like Feddy mentioned, the kOvAlty of bowling that Richards faced during his times was much, much greater than Lara. Luckily, for Richards, he doesn't have to face his own countrymen. But still Holding and Garner used to joke about how they would get clobbered around the park by Richards in their domestic Red stripe tournaments.

Mind you, 70's/80's Test average of 50 is equal to contemporary (read: dubAkoor) Test cricket's average of 60+. :)