| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Presti35 
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001
Location: London, England
|
|
|
|
 |
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
The recent coronial inquest into the circumstances of his death certainly dredged up memories for those who were saddened by his sudden death.
It's still very sad upon reflection, even if it's been two years.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
piedys
Heeeeeeere's Dyso!!!
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Resident Forum Psychopath since 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Not like our batting line-up couldn't do with him in full flight at present.
_________________
M I L L A N E 4 2 forever |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^^ Look, I'm not so sure. He obviously was quite talented but - had this not occurred - we would likely still have been questioning his technical competence against the short ball.
Cricket history is full of the stories of players who didn't play the short stuff well and whose careers at the highest level were ended by that deficiency. Not one opposition fast bowler who presented with "normal emotional affect" would have wished the lad any physical harm but they would all have wanted to serve up more than the usual number of short-pitched balls against him because they would have thought that there was a technical gap that could claim the wicket.
Fletcher, eg, simply could not deal with Lillee and especially Thompson in the 74/75 Ashes series here. He received lots of short stuff because he couldn't deal (in Australian conditions, at least) with the short, rising delivery. It got his wicket frequently - and that was its purpose, whatever hyperbole might have been used on the field amongst the players. Amess, by contrast, seemed to have a decided weakness around off stump to the ball moving away off the seam - he got a lot of that because that was the way to get his wicket and he got short stuff for variation and to mix it up in the ordinary way. Looking at a different point along the talent spectrum, Sir Isaac was never dished up so much short stuff (except perhaps in the vain hope he might hole out on the DFL boundary) once he was set because it was as likely to be dispatched into the Yarra as take his wicket.
|
|
|
|
|
piedys
Heeeeeeere's Dyso!!!
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Resident Forum Psychopath since 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Look, I'm not so sure. He obviously was quite talented but - had this not occurred - we would likely still have been questioning his technical competence against the short ball. |
I was having a similar disagreement with Donny about this matter in another thread. I was under the impression his SS form prior to being struck was enough to launch him back into the side for 2014/2015 first test.
Not implying that his ability to play the short ball had magically improved, as history cruelly demonstrated that it obviously hadn't...
I'd still prefer him in the XI over Burns, Voges, and Ferguson anyday.
Seriously though, it's a wonder any of that 74/75 touring side actually survived the Lillee/Thompson double-act; I don't recall seeing their batsmen wearing any helmets in the highlites clips?
And don't start me on the near faultless technique of IVA Richards.
Me and the boys could watch his youtube highlights all day long.
The master; none better.
_________________
M I L L A N E 4 2 forever |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^^^ They didn't generally wear helmets until World Series Cricket started in the late 70s. Graham Yallop was the first batsman to wear one in a test for Australia (1978 against the WIndies in Barbados - very wise, if I might say so).
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
