>I'm getting a little tired of this "if-you-exempt-the-innings-he-played-
>aginst-England" and in the case of Warne those he played against NZ and so
>on . The original poster brought up an interesting point as a matter of
>academic interest ... and that's all that it was.
>You want to see Lara in his true colours? Fine. Take away all the runs he
>made against mediocre bowlers on all the teams he faced - not just England.
>Re Warne ... discount all the no.8, 9, 10 & 11 batsmen's wickets he took.
>Now you'll get a clear picture of how good or bad Lara and Warne really are.
>Cheesh!! I'm beginning to see Venky's point about Viv's stats having
>nothing to do with being able to class him below Bradman.
>If anybody thinks that only England has anything to fear from Brian Lara
>or that only NZ need to worry about Warne they belong in that class of
>people that P.T.Barnum said were born every minute!
>"Send him down a grand piano and see if he can play *that*!"
> - Yabba
bit. I guess you haven't been following the thread too closely. Your
conclusion of what the thread is all about is totally off the mark.
Be careful before calling people names without knowing what they are
saying. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think there is
conclusive evidence that warne is the most consistent bowler of our
times and the best leg spinner after WW2? That is what the thread is
approximately about. Look before you leap.