IceAgeComing
Retired Administrator
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Location
- Brussels, Belgium
- Profile Flag
- Scotland
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Pretty nifty imo
Pretty sure the South African Test side in 1906 had a couple of Chinaman bowlers - they had a ridiculous amount of wrist-spinners but I can't remember which hand they bowled withI've just realised that this is quite possibly the only cricket team ever that could play two Chinaman bowlers in the same XI which is pretty cool imo
Here's where @The Author comes up with some game played in Canada in 1982 that had two SLC bowlers and thus ruin my fun
Here's where @The Author comes up with some game played in Canada in 1982 that had two SLC bowlers and thus ruin my fun
Pretty sure the South African Test side in 1906 had a couple of Chinaman bowlers - they had a ridiculous amount of wrist-spinners but I can't remember which hand they bowled with
C'est magnifique!Guess I'll just have to do it then.
There was at least one instance of Brad Hogg and Michael Bevan bowling together in the same innings of an ODI. Then, in a Test against Zimbabwe in '03, Hogg actually bowled in tandem with another chinaman in Simon Katich and was rather dubiously out-bowled by him in the same match.
That's probably not saying much but Bevan has a Test match ten-fer to his name and Katich an innings five-fer. Hogg, the so-called specialist chinaman has neither of those at Test level.
They're all going for silly money - like 30k a pop - so I've backed out of the pool A auctions. There are lots of players I'd like to target in the later pools anyway, so it ought to work out in our favour in the end - the other teams will be skint and they'll have to sign Cricket Star or something, but we can pick up the likes of VC (for example)The auctionis very unclear to me: did we sign anyone from the A pool? Does it matter?
I looked into it, but no - it likely won't be possible. After all, we already missed out on @SpitfiresKent and @User2010we can't carry on the "staff members only" approach