View Full Version : Is Prince the best crap player in world cricket?
just maybe
1 May 2006, 19:34
The guy has a lopsided conversion rate - 4 hundreds and 1 fifty in his career.
He is averaging mid-30s, so if you look at his career analysis he has this huge clump of really low scores, and then these 5 peaks (even that 50 was a 93 against Australia).
He seems to produce a big innings just when he should be dropped. He's also frightfully slow.
Thoughts?
crudbucket
1 May 2006, 19:52
Not while Michael Clarke's clacker points down at the crease ....
Grimreepah
1 May 2006, 23:38
The guy has a lopsided conversion rate - 4 hundreds and 1 fifty in his career.
He is averaging mid-30s, so if you look at his career analysis he has this huge clump of really low scores, and then these 5 peaks (even that 50 was a 93 against Australia).
He seems to produce a big innings just when he should be dropped. He's also frightfully slow.
Thoughts?
Interesting.
He's only played 20 Tests, so this may even out a bit. The stats suggest he is a flat track bully.
Here is his manhattan
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerBatGraph.asp?PlayerID=3013
ECHUCABOY
3 May 2006, 22:12
Dud.
Only young tho isn't he?? I reckon he will be a class act in a few years, have a look at pontings average after 20 tests. Certaintly shouldn't be playing one dayers atm, but has a very basic technique which should hold him in good sted aslong as he doesn't face too many S.K.Warne's over the years.
Only young tho isn't he?? I reckon he will be a class act in a few years, have a look at pontings average after 20 tests. Certaintly shouldn't be playing one dayers atm, but has a very basic technique which should hold him in good sted aslong as he doesn't face too many S.K.Warne's over the years.
28 years old.
He is far too slow and doesnt make enough runs when needed.
He is only in the side because we have that stupid rule.
ECHUCABOY
3 May 2006, 22:35
28 years old.
He is far too slow and doesnt make enough runs when needed.
He is only in the side because we have that stupid rule.
How many blacks need to be in the side? If it was two surely it would be Ntini and a 12th man, if they didn't rate prince.
How many blacks need to be in the side? If it was two surely it would be Ntini and a 12th man, if they didn't rate prince.
Duminy should come in and Prince out.
Duminy is a star in waiting, a bit like Cossie over here.
corporal
4 May 2006, 11:19
Duminy should come in and Prince out.
Duminy is a star in waiting, a bit like Cossie over here.
What does he have a weight problem?
bombersno1
4 May 2006, 16:35
What does he have a weight problem?
Damn, they already have Smith and Kallis in their side! You need another fat s..t!:thumbsd:
Damn, they already have Smith and Kallis in their side! You need another fat s..t!:thumbsd:
Cossie, Lehmann, Warne, MacGill...
Who did you say was the fat side?
Grimreepah
4 May 2006, 17:30
Cossie, Lehmann, Warne, MacGill...
Who did you say was the fat side?
Um... Cossie and Lehmann aren't in the side, and Warne and MacGill aren't fat.
MacGill. Pffffft. What planet are you on?
Um... Cossie and Lehmann aren't in the side, and Warne and MacGill aren't fat.
MacGill. Pffffft. What planet are you on?
MacGill and Warne not fat?
Haha, nice one.
grandoldgame
4 May 2006, 20:15
MacGill and Warne not fat?
Haha, nice one.
I have to agree with F/D on this one. If you don't think Warnie is fat then why say Kallis & Smith are fat? MacGill is a pretty chubby guy as well.
Punter was a little stumpy back in '96/'97 wasn't he?
Ice goddess
5 May 2006, 11:32
Warney is a lot fatter than Smith. Just on Prince, I do think he is very slow and often makes runs when it doesn't count, like that last test match. He did make a good 90 odd against Australia though.