tassietiger
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
I know at the moment we see the best players of this era as Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Warne, McGrath, Muralitharan and co. But in 50 years or so, you have to wonder who will be remembered the most. After many hours of deep thought (actually minutes but I had to watch many hours of cricket to even ponder these thoughts) I think Shahid Afridi will be one of the most known.
Think of who the greatest cricketer of all time is. Most of you will say Bradman. The rest of you are lying. Then think why you think he is the greatest cricketer of all time. He averaged 99.94 over his career. That statistic has not been beaten after all this time, and nobody has even come close. The fact he is that far ahead of the pack in this statistic has made us no longer ponder who the best cricketer ever is, but who the second-best is. There are some great players over past eras who are only ever rated by those that were there. Maybe the greats I listed in the first sentence will be like those, only rated by us, and the next generation won't think they're that great.
Murali and Warne have the most wickets in Test cricket, over 700, and that's the statistical proof that they are the greatest spin bowlers we have ever seen. But with the rising amount of cricket played, that record may very well be broken. Many of the statistical feats that we consider amazing at the moment may eventually be less amazing.
The only record that I think will most definitely never be broken is the 37-ball century hit by Shahid Afridi. In 50 years time, when someone hits a really fast century, say 50 or 60 balls, they'll want to check what the fastest one was, and they'll find it was and unbelievable 37-ball ton hit by a Pakistani kid in his debut innings. Other records may be broken, but I can't see this one being broken, no matter how small the grounds get or how flat the pitches get.
I reckon in 50 years time when we are trying to justify how Brian Lara's average in the 50s doesn't show the fact that he played some of the best innings we've ever seen, the new cricket tragics won't believe it. But when they see Shahid Afridi's 37-ball century, they'll look past the fact he struggled to hold down a regular spot in the team for a lot of his career and be amazed at that one match. I think they'll see him as the best from our era.
Also, the word 'era' can be rearrange to spell ear and are. How many three-letter words can do something like that? I don't think there are too many.
Think of who the greatest cricketer of all time is. Most of you will say Bradman. The rest of you are lying. Then think why you think he is the greatest cricketer of all time. He averaged 99.94 over his career. That statistic has not been beaten after all this time, and nobody has even come close. The fact he is that far ahead of the pack in this statistic has made us no longer ponder who the best cricketer ever is, but who the second-best is. There are some great players over past eras who are only ever rated by those that were there. Maybe the greats I listed in the first sentence will be like those, only rated by us, and the next generation won't think they're that great.
Murali and Warne have the most wickets in Test cricket, over 700, and that's the statistical proof that they are the greatest spin bowlers we have ever seen. But with the rising amount of cricket played, that record may very well be broken. Many of the statistical feats that we consider amazing at the moment may eventually be less amazing.
The only record that I think will most definitely never be broken is the 37-ball century hit by Shahid Afridi. In 50 years time, when someone hits a really fast century, say 50 or 60 balls, they'll want to check what the fastest one was, and they'll find it was and unbelievable 37-ball ton hit by a Pakistani kid in his debut innings. Other records may be broken, but I can't see this one being broken, no matter how small the grounds get or how flat the pitches get.
I reckon in 50 years time when we are trying to justify how Brian Lara's average in the 50s doesn't show the fact that he played some of the best innings we've ever seen, the new cricket tragics won't believe it. But when they see Shahid Afridi's 37-ball century, they'll look past the fact he struggled to hold down a regular spot in the team for a lot of his career and be amazed at that one match. I think they'll see him as the best from our era.
Also, the word 'era' can be rearrange to spell ear and are. How many three-letter words can do something like that? I don't think there are too many.