Battle of the Australians: Bill Brown vs Hugh Trumble

[puddleduck]

Merv Hughes for me, again because he had that character that a lot of cricketers sometimes seem to lack. Was a good bowler as well to be fair to him.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Hughes unfortunately, due to the big character.

 

[nightprowler10]

4-0 to big Merv in yet another popular battle


Round 1: Battle 14

Warwick Armstrong

Test: 50 matches, 2863 runs @ 38.68, 6 centuries, 8 fifties | 87 wickets @ 33.59, 3 5-wicket hauls

vs

Michael Slater

Test: 74 matches, 5312 runs @ 42.83, 14 centuries, 21 half-centuries
ODI: 42 matches, 987 runs @ 24.07, 9 half-centuries

 

[Wildwil]

Michael Slater I feel he should have played more for Aus. He was good with the bat

 

[puddleduck]

Warwick Armstrong for me. Another of the players I knew next to nothing about, but on reading up about him I feel he takes the vote due to his phenomenal FC statistics. Had more cricket been played in his day at test level, I'm sure he would have some fantastic statistics.

 

[Adarsh]

Michael Slater. Why? Because I've not seen the other guy play! You really should try compare two from the same generation, atleast in the first rounds.

 

[puddleduck]

Michael Slater. Why? Because I've not seen the other guy play! You really should try compare two from the same generation, atleast in the first rounds.

So you'd vote for Giles ahead of Underwood? Or Rob Key ahead of Bradman?

Click on the links that are in their names if you haven't heard of them, and read the information provided

 

[.::Stevo::.]

Stuff reading, I'm on holidays now. Slater FTW!!

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Armstrong for me. Seems like a nice allrounder, and I've actually heard of him before!
If Slatter lived up to his talent a bit more, he would have got my vote...

 

[aussie_ben91]

Michael Slater, brilliant opening batsman. I remember when I was younger he was my favourite player.

 

[nightprowler10]

4-2 to Slater.

Round 1: Battle 15

Bruce Reid

Tests: 27 matches, 113 wickets @ 24.63, 5 5-wicket hauls, 2 10-wicket hauls
ODI: 61 matches, 63 wickets @ 34.96, 1 5-wicket haul

vs

Damien Martyn

Test: 65 matches, 4361 runs @ 47.40, 13 100s, 23 50s
ODI: 203 matches, 5105 runs @ 39.88, 5 100s, 37 50s

 

[.::Stevo::.]

Hmm, abit hard to compare, but I'd go with Reid, just....

 

[puddleduck]

NP how come you're not voting? I think you'll find on this forum in particular that results like that Slater v Armstrong one happen all too often, it's a fairly young average age on the forum, and the modern day players will more often than, whether right or wrong is irrelevant, will get the votes.

You did seem to end that one quite quickly though, didn't give Andrew time to vote, and I think he may have gone for Armstrong.

Anyway, moving on - I'm gonna vote for Martyn, although it was a tough one. Had Reid played more cricket I would have gone for him almost certainly, but his injury problems meant a highly promising career was cut short. Martyn has however played double the amount of Tests, and a double ton of Odis, all with success and good records.

It was hard to decide, as I think technically Reid was probably the more talented, and would have acheived more, but unfortunately for him it just wasn't meant to be.

 

[nightprowler10]

I normally don't vote in battles that I take part in, but come to think of it, why the hell not!

As for the duration of the battles, I've stated that every battle will run 24 hours. So unless there is no point in continuing a battle (ex: 15-0 to Warne after 6 hours) it will run at least 24 hours, after which it just depends on which time is convenient for me, and I won't leave a battle open just so a player I like may win.

As for this battle, my brain tells me to vote Martyn because he has contributed more over a longer period of time, yet my heart tells me to vote for Reid for that awesome talent. I'll go with my heart: Reid

 

[puddleduck]

I normally don't vote in battles that I take part in, but come to think of it, why the hell not!

That's the spirit :