The Independent Voice of West Indies Cricket

Is Kraigg a Better Batsman than Ganga???

Page: previous  1 2
openning 8/23/24, 4:18:00 PM
openning avatar image

debut: 11/13/02
44,228 runs

In reply to Jumpstart

Bro, stop this hate.
On August 12 of this year, I happened to look at my phone at about 1:30 am, my son had called six times, I knew something was wrong, as I call he said to me, "Dad something is wrong, I have been calling you because mom has a stroke and EMS has taken her to the hospital, Nothing else needs to be said.
I have been at the hospital every day since that morning, and some know of my present wife's condition.
I don't have time to hate.
Musicman my brother, and my son went with me to visit my wife, it was the first time in three years we saw smiles, hugs, dancing and laughter.
I want to see the best in all of us, none of us is perfect.
Jumpstart 8/23/24, 4:21:14 PM
Jumpstart avatar image

debut: 11/30/17
10,460 runs

In reply to openning

I don't have time to hate.

on bajans yes
Walco 8/23/24, 5:28:18 PM
Walco avatar image

debut: 6/22/08
13,652 runs

There you have it folks. In the annuls of batsmanship, technique and attractiveness matter more than production. So a guy who scored 3 tons in 48 matches is better than a guy who scored 12 tons in 91 matches with a higher average. So says the jumpy one smile
Jumpstart 8/23/24, 6:36:52 PM
Jumpstart avatar image

debut: 11/30/17
10,460 runs

In reply to Walco
There you have it folks. In the annuls of batsmanship, technique and attractiveness matter more than production. So a guy who scored 3 tons in 48 matches is better than a guy who scored 12 tons in 91 matches with a higher average. So says the jumpy one

homes i didn't say that. i said they were both failures. if two guys sit cxc, one gets 20, the other gets 30, that is irrelevant to the entire exam analysis, they both failed.

i said kraigg failed on three fronts: inability to take the shine off the ball, inability to score runs on a consistent basis and the inability to get ball off the square consistently. ganga failed because, despite having perfect technique, his mind did not adapt regularly to the rigors of test cricket. and i pointed out why gayle, despite no foot movement could adapt to the rigors of test cricket.

you know i can see why the andy cummins fiasco could explode into the nationalistic orgy it became. the level of irrational jingoism and tomfoolery that frequently possesses the discussion about or on cricket in Barbados seems to be impenetrable
Walco 8/25/24, 7:58:30 PM
Walco avatar image

debut: 6/22/08
13,652 runs

In reply to Walco

i said kraigg failed on three fronts: inability to take the shine off the ball, inability to score runs on a consistent basis and the inability to get ball off the square consistently.

Actually this is what you said about Kraigg:
homes....even the most rubbish cricketers will score 15 hundreds if they are given 91 test matches in which to do it regardless of average. Kraigg is a terrible batsman.

Now you are saying that both Kraigg and Ganga were failures. So I take it that you think both Ganga and Kraigg are/were terrible batsmen smile
- edited -
Page: previous  1 2