Cheapening the 300 club

Nice paunch Harry...

Can it be any cheaper once Bung got in?

FFS, I'd erased that one from my memory...

Could well cheapen the 400 club yet.... though to be fair Murali has already left his mess all over 300 and 400

JKLever wrote:Could well cheapen the 400 club yet.... though to be fair Murali has already left his mess all over 300 and 400

Sage. At least Harry took his wickets legally.

JKLever wrote:Could well cheapen the 400 club yet.... though to be fair Murali has already left his mess all over 300 and 400

and... and...and....

Isn't it "cheaping" ?

JGK wrote:Isn't it "qunting" ?

yep

Well, I say well done to Harry. Single handedly carried the Sheep on his back since he was 18.

Fair play Den.

And the 300 club has been muto cheapened by the chuckers, amongst others.

skully wrote:Well, I say well done to Harry. Single handedly carried the Sheep on his back since he was 18.

18. He looked ten when i first saw him. But yeah good on him.

Dan's heart is 10 times bigger than Chris Cairns'.

Brass Monkey wrote:Fair play Den.

And the 300 club has been muto cheapened by the chuckers, amongst others.

Bradman wrote:

skully wrote:Well, I say well done to Harry. Single handedly carried the Sheep on his back since he was 18.

18. He looked ten when i first saw him. But yeah good on him.

skully wrote:Dan's heart is 10 times bigger than Chris Cairns'.

Second that. He has been the best soldier for New Zealand cricket and is now something of an all-rounder. He has def not cheapened test cricket and is the only one who stands between New Zealand test cricket and it's utter collapse...

I seriously doubt that Vettori cheapens any 300 club. He's done half decent against all countries, he's one of NZ's best players and once he retires he'll be up there with Crowe, Hadlee and Fleming; as one of NZ's Greatest Test players.

He's done half decent against all countries, he's one of NZ's best players and once he retires he'll be up there with Crowe, Hadlee and Fleming; as one of NZ's Greatest Test players.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...there are so many things wrong with that statement...

1) 'Half decent' - more like fully shit-house.
2) 'Crowe, Hadlee, Fleming' - Fleming?!?! He shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as the other two, unless that sentence is something like "Crowe and Hadlee where very good, whereas Fleming was mediocre at best."
3) NZ Great Test players - BWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Invader Zim wrote:

He's done half decent against all countries, he's one of NZ's best players and once he retires he'll be up there with Crowe, Hadlee and Fleming; as one of NZ's Greatest Test players.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...there are so many things wrong with that statement...

1) 'Half decent' - more like fully shit-house.
2) 'Crowe, Hadlee, Fleming' - Fleming?!?! He shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as the other two, unless that sentence is something like "Crowe and Hadlee where very good, whereas Fleming was mediocre at best."
3) NZ Great Test players - BWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Hadlee was the first bowler to break past 400 wickets club in an era dominated by WI all time fast bowling greats. Also got past 3000 runs in an era where bowlers and pitches were the most testing. If that doesn't make him a test great, than what does?

If Vettori gets past 400 wickets and 4000 test runs too at the same time, I see no reason why he can't be called great. It's not his fault he gets to play for a crap team.

Batman wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:

He's done half decent against all countries, he's one of NZ's best players and once he retires he'll be up there with Crowe, Hadlee and Fleming; as one of NZ's Greatest Test players.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...there are so many things wrong with that statement...

1) 'Half decent' - more like fully shit-house.
2) 'Crowe, Hadlee, Fleming' - Fleming?!?! He shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as the other two, unless that sentence is something like "Crowe and Hadlee where very good, whereas Fleming was mediocre at best."
3) NZ Great Test players - BWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Hadlee was the first bowler to break past 400 wickets club in an era dominated by WI all time greats. Also got past 3000 runs in an era where bowlers and pitches were the most testing. If that doesn't make him a test great, than what does?

Zimmy said Fleming isn't a great FFS.

How can he join the club if he is the first one there?

taipan wrote:

Batman wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:

He's done half decent against all countries, he's one of NZ's best players and once he retires he'll be up there with Crowe, Hadlee and Fleming; as one of NZ's Greatest Test players.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...there are so many things wrong with that statement...

1) 'Half decent' - more like fully shit-house.
2) 'Crowe, Hadlee, Fleming' - Fleming?!?! He shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as the other two, unless that sentence is something like "Crowe and Hadlee where very good, whereas Fleming was mediocre at best."
3) NZ Great Test players - BWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Hadlee was the first bowler to break past 400 wickets club in an era dominated by WI all time greats. Also got past 3000 runs in an era where bowlers and pitches were the most testing. If that doesn't make him a test great, than what does?

Zimmy said Fleming isn't a great FFS.

How can he join the club if he is the first one there?

Perhaps I should have been more specific here. It wasn't in response to Fleming. It was to his last line mockery

NZ Great Test players - BWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Australians would give a Castlemaine XXXX for Vaniel Dettori at the moment.

Especially if they could rewind and play him on that Oval pitch...
He'd even add some backbone to the batting.

spangler wrote:Australians would give a Castlemaine XXXX for Vaniel Dettori at the moment.

Especially if they could rewind and play him on that Oval pitch...
He'd even add some backbone to the batting.

It would probably hurt a few that this Kiwi's fully sh!t house bowler is better than some of Aus's best spin bowlers atm. And yeah, he can bat too and fill out the all-rounder's slot without getting into any discipline and drink related controversies.....


Anyways, what a bullshit thread!

Sad part is, we don't have enough bowlers right we can bank on to get past even 300 wickets these days. Barring Steyn and Zaheer when they get fully fit, there aren't too many out there who atm look like they will play that consistantly well and beyond.

It's funny how spangler hit the naiil so unbelievably straight on the head.

Batman wrote:Sad part is, we don't have enough bowlers right we can bank on to get past even 300 wickets these days. Barring Steyn and Zaheer when they get fully fit, there aren't too many out there who atm look like they will play that consistantly well and beyond.

Highest wicket-takers among active players:

Murali 777 (age 37)
Ntini 388 (32)
Harbhajan 330 (29)
Lee 310 (32)
Vettori 300 (30)
Kallis 258 (33)
Kaneria 232 (28)
Harmison 226 (30)
Zaheer 210 (30)

Recently retired we have Vaas (355) and Flintoff (226). Most of those on the above list are getting close to the end of their careers, it's going to be a while before we see much movement at the top end of the Test wickets list.

Going down a bit further:

Steyn 170 (26)
Martin 164 (34)
Anderson 140 (27)
Panesar 126 (27)
Edwards 122 (27)
Johnson 114 (27)

As far as I can tell that's ALL the currently active Test bowlers with over 100 wickets to their name. Not exactly a list of greats or even potential greats is it?

Steyn must be close. I mean come on. We always go on about how pitches around the world are so batsman freindly these days, and yet here's a guy with an average in the low 20's and a strike rate in the mid 40's, and he's played close to 50 tests. He has to at least be considered as a great bowler, considering the times.