Athlete that dont play cricket: who could do well?

Ray Mysterio would have been the best fielder ever if he played cricket.
 
Jonathan Brown - AFL player. He actually bowled to Ricky Ponting on a tv show and caused him tons of problems. He was bowling really quick off a few steps.
 
Robert Green used to play club cricket to a decent standard.
 
On Sunday I played cricket against Paddington. They had Jay Tabb playing for them who was on the subs bench for Reading FC against Watford on Saturday.
 
phil neville,
he played in the lancashire team like another member stated,

i heard somebody say that freddie never used to get a bowl, because phil neville had already bowled the team out
 
holy crap about phil neville.

youngest player ever to score a ton for lancashire's second XI!!!!

I guess he has a champions league medal (i think) and way more money being a football player, but he also had to suffer being the rubbish sibling and playing for everton.
 
Mike Tyson would have been a great bowler. Try turning down one of his appeals.
 
He isn't an athlete, rather, he's an actor; a very popular face in Bengali cinemas. But initially, he was a cricketer, and he represented Bengal in some sub-junior games. He wasn't any bad player at all, and could have been a noted cricketer of the Bengal side had he not chosen to become a film actor instead. His name is Jishu Sengupta.
 
I could see Federer begin a good batsman. Some balls in tennis come at the same speed as a cricket ball and Federers footwork is really good.
 
I could see Federer begin a good batsman. Some balls in tennis come at the same speed as a cricket ball and Federers footwork is really good.

True but in tennis rarely can one get hurt by the ball. There is a certain element of fear in cricket that is not present in tennis.
 
True but in tennis rarely can one get hurt by the ball. There is a certain element of fear in cricket that is not present in tennis.

True but he would have padding and a helmet. I'd like to see it.
 
We'd all like to see it.

There is a big difference in facing a 150k serve from Roddick and facing a 150k bumper from Lee.

I love when people underestimate or misunderstand cricket. A few times some of my friends who have never heard of cricket have called it a "pussy" sport. I took some of them to our club nets and threw down some dibbly dobbly seamers (70 mph at best for me) and it was enough to scare them straight.
 
a 150k serve would be considered a complete pie in tennis, and female players serving at this speed are ridiculed.

roddick has served at 249k before. and around 190-220 is considered the par, the reaction time is considerably less in tennis, about 0.6 seconds in tennis to 0.9 in cricket. an article was run on this during the ashes and wimbledon. true there is an element of fear in cricket but there's nothing to suggest it's more than a tennis player could handle.

very often athletes are just gifted with certain abilities like hand-eye co-ordination and muscle memory and gravitate to the popular sports in their country. you notice most athletes that play things like golf recreationally usually end up with exceptional handicaps (ab de villiers plays off scratch I think) despite committing no more time than an average hobbiest would.
 
Last edited:
a 150k serve would be considered a complete pie in tennis, and female players serving at this speed are ridiculed.

roddick has served at 249k before. and around 190-220 is considered the par, the reaction time is considerably less in tennis, about 0.6 seconds in tennis to 0.9 in cricket. an article was run on this during the ashes and wimbledon.

Still, worst case scenario you are being hit with a tennis ball.

My point being, there is a lot more fear in facing a cricket ball even though its travelling a lot slower.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top